| From OneLove
After spending 3 days at the university library, I was able to verify nearly all of the claims presented by Acharya S and Zeitgeist, with very minor errors in interpretation. As far as Horus and the Zeitgeist info, have you read the Companion to Zeitgeist? It has strong support for the Horus connections. Since that’s already published, as well as a new book by Prof. John Rush called Failed God that further delves into the Christian/Egyptian ties, I won’t bother to present them here, but instead refer you to these sources. I found various ancient textual sources on Jstor.org to support Mithra with 12 helpers, born of a virgin, etc, as well as Horus/ Zoroaster, etc. The problem with the story of Mithra being misunderstood in the west is that he had a twin brother, Yima, who composed half of himself: one good, one evil. It’s sort of like the concept of Yin/Yang. Both are one, yet at the same time opposites – light/dark, day/night, good/bad, god/devil. So Mithra had 12 helpers, six of good, six of evil. Unfortunately, after going to the Library I’ve lost my document for this specific citation – I had to reinstall my Windows and lost the documents that I had saved, but I’ve found several other very good ones, below. However, if you search JStor.org at any University Library, these citations were not difficult to find. I’ve taken the liberty to highlight in red all citations to ancient texts that discuss the Jesus/sun relationship. Just paypal me the money to this email address. A clarified/corrected list of verified similarities between Jesus and Mithra should read: · Mithra was born on December 25th. · He had 12 companions or helpers – six good and six evil. · He performed miracles. · He was buried in a rock tomb. · After three days he rose again. · His resurrection was celebrated every year. · Mithra’s brother, Yima, was called “the Good Shepherd.” · Mithra was considered “the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.” · He was often identified with both the Lion and the Lamb. · His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. · Mithra had a principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. · His religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.” An early Christian work, the 'Paschal Chronicle' (Migne ed. xcii, col. 385), tells us that every year the temples of Horus presented to worshipers, in mid-winter (or about December 25th), a scenic model of the birth of Horus. He was represented as a babe born in a stable, his mother Isis standing by. Just in the same way is the birth of Christ dramatized today in every Roman Catholic church in the world on December 25th. The Roman writer Macrobius makes the same statement about the representation of the birth of Horus in the temples…and adds that the young god was a symbol of the rebirth of the sun at that date. The fact is, at all events, beyond question. We are brought to the very threshold of Christianity. The whole world by the year 1 A.D. was familiar with the Egyptian statues or pictures of Isis with the divine babe Horus in her arms.[1] ~ Joseph McCabe, The Story of Religious Controversy, pg. 169 In 375 CE, Epiphanius, Biship of Constantia, described the similarities between Jesus’ birth and the pagan winter solstice celebrations. About 1,000 years later, in the 14th century, the Church attempted to censure this evidence, but an original, uncensored copy was later discovered and is presented below. As noted scholar G.R.S. Mead relates on the Epiphanius text: And here it will be of interest to turn to a curious statement of Epiphanius; it is missing in all editions of this Father prior to that of Dindorf (Leipzig, 1859), which was based on the very early (tenth century) Codex Marcianus 125, all previous editions being printed from a severely censured and bowdlerized fourteenth century MS.[2] ~ George Robert Stow Mead, Thrice-greatest Hermes, 1906 The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis 51.22.3-12: 22,3 For the Savior was born during the forty-second year of the Roman emperor Augustus […] (4) For these say as follows: […] “Christ was born on the eighth before the Ides of January, thirteen days after the winter solstice [the epiphany] and the increase of the light of the day.” (5) Greeks, I mean the idolaters, celebrate this day on the eighth before the Kalends of January, which Romans call Saturnalia, Egyptians Cronia, and Alexandrians, Cicellia. (6) For this division between signs of the zodiac, which is a solstice, comes on the eighth before the Kalends of January, and the day begins to lengthen because the light is receiving its increase. And it completes a period of thirteen days until the eighth before the Ides of January, the day of Christ’s birth, with a thirtieth of an hour added to each day (7) The Syrian sage, Ephrem, testified to this calculation in his commentaries when he said, “Thus the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth in the flesh or perfect incarnation which is called the Epiphany, was revealed after a space of thirteen days from the beginning of the increase of the light. For this too must needs be a type of the number of our Lord Jesus Christ and his twelve disciples, since, added to the disciples, he made up <the> number of the thirteen days of the light’s increase. 22,8 And how many other things have been done and are being done because of, and in testimony to this calculation, I mean of Christ’s birth? Indeed, those who guilefully preside over the cult of idols are obliged to confess a part of the truth, and in many places deceitfully celebrate a very great festival on the very night of the Epiphany, to deceive the idolaters who believe them into hoping in the imposture and not seeking the truth. 22,9 First, at Alexandria , in the Coreum, as they call it; it is a very large temple, the shrine of Core [Kore]. They stay up all night singing hymns to the idol with a flute accompaniment. And when they have concluded their nightlong vigil torchbearers descend into an underground shrine after cockcrow (10) and bring up a wooden image which is seated naked <on> a litter. It has a sign of the cross inlaid with gold on its forehead, two other such signs, [one] on each hand, and two other signs, [one] actually [on each of] its two knees—altogether five signs with gold impress. And they carry the image itself seven times round the innermost shrine with flutes, tambourines and hymns, hold a feast, and take it back down to its place underground. And when you ask them what this mystery means they reply that today at this hour Core—that is, the virgin—has given birth to Aeo. 22,11 This also goes on in the city of Petra , in the idolatrous temple there. (Petra is the capital city of Arabia, the scriptural Edom .) They praise the virgin with hymns in the Arab language and call her Chaamu—that is, Core, or virgin—in Arabic. And the child who is born of her they call Dusares, that is “only son of the Lord.” And this is also done that night in the city of Elusa , as it is there in Petra , and in Alexandria . 22,12 I have been obliged to prove this with many examples because of those who do not believe that “The Epiphany” is a good name for the fleshy birth of the Savior.[3] ~ Epiphanius In Ad Nationes (I, 13), Tertullian writes: The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort. …Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? Once more, in his Apology (16), Tertullian addresses what appears to be a widespread insight that he surprisingly asserts comes from those with "more information" and "greater verisimilitude" or truth: …Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our god. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. Professor M. Moghdam The Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies Tehran 1975 Ahura Mazda is a divine name, but you can meet men in flesh named Hormoz. Mithra is the name of an ancient Iranian divinity, but you can meet men named Mehr, and nowadays boys and even girls are named Mitra. One such man by the name of Methr or Mehr or Mir appeared in Eastern Iran in the third century BCE, and he was hailed as the expected saviour or Sosyant, and the religion he founded spread all over the ancient world from the British Isles to Japan, South to the confines of the Sahara desert, down to southern Arabia, and the Indian sub-continent. It was the official religion of the two rival powers of the ancient world, the Parthian and the Roman empires for half a millennium. It had time and again been observed that the Mithraism with whose remains we are familiar in the Roman Empire was in many respects different from the ancient Mithra cult, that there was some new development, perhaps some sort of a revival or reform. This called the forth for new nomenclature, among others neo-Mithraism, later Mithraism (Humbach), or Saco -Median Mithraism of the Modified Seythians (Gershevitch). The explanation of this new religious phenomenon was sought in the accretion of Mesopotamian and Syrian elements, in the activities of Hellenized Magians, or even, as tendencies in some quarters indicate, in an almost Western, Roman creation and, as far as the silence and confusion of extant sources permit, almost a total denial of its connection with Iran, particularly as it bears on its relations with Christianity. However, I believe we are now in a position to offer a new explanation. The Saviour was born in the middle of the night between Saturday and Sunday, 24th and 25th of December, 272 BCE, and according to those who believed in Him from an Immaculate (Anahid) Virgin (Xosidhag) somewhere not far from lake Hamin, Sistan, Lived for 64 years among men, and ascended to His Father Ahura Mazda in 208 BCE The literary evidence Keeping in mind the fate of the religion of Mithra in the West and its utter absorption in Christianity, and the similar fate it had, even more severely, under the Sasanian neo-Zoroastrianism and later under Islam, we would naturally expect in Moslem historians a total identification of Mithra with Jesus, the only Messiah allowed in orthodox Islam. The following are some of the texts related to the birth of the Messiah. (All references are to Persian translation of the Arabic text Hazma, History of Prophets and Kings, p.41: "Shabur son of Ashk: The Lord Messiah appeared in his days. Shabur fought against Rum, and at that time the king that ruled there was Antiochus, the third king after Alexander, and it was he who built Antioch ." Tha'alibi, Ghurar, p.215: "Jesus and John son of Zacharias, on them be peace, lived during the reign of Sabur Shah son of Afghur Shah." Ibn Miskuwaih, Ta jarib: "Jesus appeared during the reign of Sabur son of Ashkan." Tabari, History, vol. II, p.498: "And these were the Ashkanian kings that are now called Muluk-al-Tawa if (Kings of the Tribes, the Parthian Federation)… During this period Ashk son of Ashkan ruled for ten years. After him Shabur son of Ashkan ruled for sixty years, and in the forty-first year of his reign Jesus son of Mary appeared in the land of Palestine ." Ibid. , p.466: "Jesus son of Mary, on whom be peace, was born in Jerusalem fifty-one years after the beginning of the reign of the Parthian Federation." In contrast, Ibid. p.495: "In the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus Jesus son of Mary, on whom be peace, was born, and his birth was 303 years after the uprising of Alexander." Tabari continues, p. 501: "The Persians think that Mary, daughter of Amran, gave birth to Jesus, son of Mary, sixty-five years after the domination of Alexander over the land of Babylon, but the Christians think the birth of Jesus occurred 303 years after the reign of Alexander, and they also think that the birth of John, son of Zacharias, was six months before the birth of Jesus." Tabari goes on, p. 507: "The Magians agree with the Christians and Jews as to the duration of the desolation of the Holy City and What Bukhtnasr did with the Israelites until the domination of Alexander over the Holy City and Syria and the death of Dara, but they disagree as to the interval between the reign of Alexander and the birth of John; they think that the interval was fifty-one years, and the disagreement between the reign of Alexander and the birth of John and Jesus is what I have said." Mas'udi in the Muruj and Tanbih is still more explicit. Muruj, vol. I, p.229:4 "After Ashk there was Shabur son of Ashk who ruled for sixty years, and in the forty-first year of his reign the Lord Messiah, on whom be peace, appeared in Ilya of Palestine." Ibid. , p.550: "Tishirin Second is thirty days and Kanun First is thirty days. Nineteenth of Kanun the day is 9 1/2 hours and a quarter, and the night is 14 hours and a quarter maximum. On the eve of the 25th of this month is the birth of Messiah, on whom be peace." And, incidentally, in connection with the island of Socotra he says, ibid. , p.382, that Aristotle wrote a letter to Alexander and made recommendations to the effect that Alexander should send a group of Greeks to that island and settle them there, Alexander did accordingly. Then "Alexander died and Messiah appeared and the inhabitants of the island became Nasranis." And now in contrast, ibid, p.303: "In the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, on whom be peace, who, as we have said before, is Yasu Naseri (Jesus of Nazareth) was born." And he adds in the Tanbih, pp 114-115: "In the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus the Messiah was born in Bethlehem of Palestine …According to the Christians in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Ishu Nasiri was baptized in the river Jordan … According to the Christians in the seventeenth year of the reign of Tiberius, who was king 342 years after Alexander son of Philip, Ishu Nasiri was crucified." Masudi uses, it seems advisedly, two distinct expressions, al- sayyid al-Masih, the Lord Messiah, and Ishu Nasiri, Jesus of Nazareth, although he used both expressions for Jesus son of Mary because he would not dare to say otherwise, which, by the way, reminds one of Augustine's reference to Mithra as the "Fellow in the Cap", for apparently any reference to the name Mithras was declared anathema by the church. However, it is quite clear from the above texts that these historians made a distinction between two Messiahs, one born 65 years after the beginning of the reign (mulk) of Alexander (336-335 BCE) and in the fifty-first year of the founding of the Parthian dynasty: i.e. in 272-271 BCE, and the other, Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus. The same narrative and dates are given in the Koranic commentaries on the Sura' Al' Amran, for example Ab-ul- Futuh, Qomshei's Tehran edition, vol. II, p. 372. There seems also to be a distinction running through all the sources between a Messiah that was crucified and the Messiah that was not crucified, and the Koranic narrative of the crucifixion was perhaps as assimilation of the two traditions in one presentation. It may be observed that these narratives do not supplement each other, but are derived from one source, which was universally accepted by these historians, for there was no other tradition. And finally, from Armenia , the last stronghold of the religion of Mithra, we had the testimony of Elise Vardapet to the effect that the Lord Mihr was born of a human mother and he is King and the Son of God. I believe all students of Iranian religions are familiar with the story of virgins bathing in Lack Hamun where the seed of Zoroaster is preserved for making the chosen virgin pregnant, who is to give birth to the expected Saviour, on the model of which the story of the virgin birth of Jesus from the seed of David was constructed. Although no seed of David is in substance is present at the appearance of the angle in the Annunciation scene on the 25th of March, Koranic commentators repeat the story that the angel blew in the sleeves of Mary's dress when she came out of the water. The story of the virgin birth originates from the materialization of Farr or Xvarenah, which after all, in spite of the scholarly literature that has grown about it, is the light within man, what in modern terminology we name aptitude. Now the capacity of the individual for kingship or prophet hood is of course of a higher order and was therefore specified as the Kingly Farr and the Farr of Zarathushtra. Since in popular belief this Farr had taken a material form it could only be transmitted through materials means. Hence the transmission of the Kingly Farr in the case of Freydun through plant, animal and milk, or the Farr of Zardosht conveyed to the future Saviour by means of his reserved seed. And in the case of Zoroaster himself, the heavenly Farr descended in the form of fire and mingled with the holy fire in the atrium and penetrated into the body of His mother and joined the baby Zarathushtra. In this connection is should be pointed out that due to the supposed preservation of the seed as bearer of the Farr in water, three Mithraic symbols came into use. (1) The pearl and its shell, a "seed" that grows into an organism in water. The pearl is seen in Mithraic monuments, for example in the hands of angels in Taq-e-Bostan, in the beak of birds in eastern Iran and elsewhere, and in literature, such as the Pearl of great price in he gospels and the well-known Syriac Hymn of the Pearl. The shell is represented in some of the scenes of the birth of Mithra that have been erroneously interpreted as an egg, and also appears as the vaulting of niches in Mithraic monuments and in the churches, especially where Mother and Child are depicted. Incidentally the word for niche in Italian means shell (Nicchia, nicchio). (2) The second symbol is the dolphin, obviously as a mammal raising its young in water. This symbol is found on some Mithraic monuments in Europe and appears abundantly in the Khirbahs or Mithraeums in Syria and Arabia . (3) The third symbol is the lotus, a water-flower. Mithra stands n a lotus in Taq-e-Bostan and it seems to me that the stylized object from which Mithra emerges, and which has been interpreted as rock, is nearer to the shape of the lotus, besides the possible confusion in the Greek title of Mithra as Petregenes, from petra, rock, and petri-on, the name of a plant; of petal-on, petal. And now we pass on from the virgin birth to the ascension. Hamza, p. 42, says: "Gudarz son of Ashk, after John was killed by the Children of Israel, fought against them and destroyed Jerusalem for the second time." Tha'alibi, P.216: "Gudarz son of Shabur started his reign with a war of revenge against the Children of Israel for their having killing John of Zacharias, and destroyed Jerusalem ." Now leaving aside again the confusion arising from the identification of Mithra with Jesus, and taking notice of the information is Islamic writings and the Messiah was charged with his mission when he was 25 years old and preached for 40 years among men, and the date of the second destruction of Jerusalem in 168 BCE, and the date given for the second destruction of Jerusalem as 40 years after the Ascension, we conclude that the death of Mithra took place in the year 208 BCE and from the Turfan fragment that was taken by Henning, with his own emendation, as a description of the death of Mani, we learn the death of Mithra Messiah occurred on Monday, the fourth of Shahrivar, at the eleventh hour at night. (Henning's ascription of the said fragment to Mani's death is impossible because the day and the month do not coincide with the dates we for Mani's death in prison.) The Archaeology of Mithraism I shall deal briefly with some of these relevant archaeological problems in my forth coming small book in Persian with the title An Essay on Mehr and Nahid, and I shall only make a few remarks here. Motives for Identification 1. When a foreign thought, religious or otherwise, or even foreign material objects are imposed upon or adopted by a people, they are adapted by the receiving people and one means of adaption and reception is the identification of the foreign thing to what is already existing and familiar. This is natural and permissible, and one may say sincere. Specially in the case of the religion of Mithra which was the most universal religion in the ancient world, and which had its object the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth and the brotherhood of man, as symbolized in the Mithraic sign of the Cross, explained in the Mithraic monument of Hsian-fu in China as representing the unity of man from the four corners of the earth, even the encouragement of such a policy of identification on the art of the followers of Mithra is quite understandable. (Incidentally, the Hsian-fu monument carries all the three symbols of the pearl, the lotus and the dolphin.) 2. A second motive of identification is the protection of native monuments from vandalism of fanatical groups who are imposing a new religion or a new way of life. Under this category may be listed such identifications as the Mosque of Solomon's Mother, Takht-e-Soleyman, Ebrahim-e Zardosht, or the substitution of Mithra with Jesus, that my be literally multiplied a hundred fold in Iran and elsewhere. Now the modern scholarly attempts at identification of things Iranian with Greek mythological names do not fall within either of these two categories, unless it is committed as an act of defence for the protection of the West, and on particular the Church, against an Iranian re-invasion. Furthermore, I sympathize with Herzfeld when he said that the constant mention of gods and goddesses of fertility is really sickening. Passing on to the problem of lack of Mithraeums in Iran, it must be pointed out that in Iran they had the same fate as in Europe, where excavations have revealed a Mithraeum under almost every old church building. In the east, for example the Cathedral in Etchmiadzin we have encountered the same phenomenon, and recent excavations under Jame Mosque in Esfahan by the Italians, as also in other Jame Mosques in Iran have revealed remains of pre-Islamic monuments which must certainly be of a religious character. In Iran the Parthian Mithraeums were first turned into Sasanian fire-temples, still preserving the name dare-e Mehr, and second time into mosques, also preserving the old designation as the "House of Communion" (myazda-kada> mazget> masjed, Arabic sajada being a back-formation). But Iran is not lacking in Mithraic monuments. The Taq-e-Bostan with its cave-like construction and the religious scenes inside the Taq is a Parthian monument, situated in a district named in honour if Mithra, Baghestan, with its Mithraic appendages of flowing spring and small lake, and the figure of Mithra standing on a lotus flower. The ascription of the scenes to Khosro Parvis is impossible and follows the policy of identifications discussed above, which may have been encouraged even in the Sasanian period. The "fire-temple" in Bishapur is another similar case. When some years ago I argued that we could not consider an underground building as a Zoroastrian fire-temple I did not have Professor Ghirshman's Bichapour, vol. II on hand. The figure of Mithra on a fragment discovered in that temple and reproduced on Plate XVII removes any doubt as to the Mithraic origin of that temple. Furthermore, the Khirbahs scattered all over Arabia and Syria are Mithraeums in which Mithraic figures and statuettes have been discovered. Khirbah has no connection with Arabic Kharaba, ruined. It is the Iranian Khorabe, a "sun-dome." Abe is found in compounds as in gur-abe, a "tomb-dome," a mausoleum, or in the name Saavee, "three domes," reminding one of Marco Polo's, mention of the tombs of the three Magi in that town. It is the name of a locality near Hamedan in its older form, Avaj, and the word lives on in English Abbey and ab-bot, old English ab-bod, the head of the abbey. In the Masnavi we have Khor-bod, head of the Khor-Khane, translated into Arabic shammas, a title still used in oriental churches for an office of the clergy. (Dozy also translated Arabic Khirba as "court.") In the last story in the kitab al-Aghani it is narrated, "in Sistan there was a man called Burzen, an ascetic, whose father had been impaled in his Khiraba." He could not have been impaled in his "ruins" but in the Khorabe, Mithraeum. So there were Khorabes as far as Sistan. In the poems of Hafez the Khorabat-e Moqan, Mithraeums of the Magians, synonymous with Deyr-e Moghan, the convent of the Magians, is common theme. The word deyr, from Avestan dauru-upadarana-, wooden house, is also found the compound Se-deyr, the three Convents, the old name of Dura Europas, the word dura itself representing deyr. In Armenia , as Starbo mentions, a whole district was named in honour of Anahita, the Mother of God, and the word Mehean from Migryan, i.e. Mithraism, is the common noun in Armenian for temple. Now the ruins of the Mehean in Garni show that the temple was a magnificent monumental edifice. It was natural that the royal house of the Armenia who were followers of Mithra should build such royal temples for worship. It follows that the Parthian emperors must have built such monumental cathedrals in the homeland of Mithra. The temple at Kangavar, dedicated also the Mother of God, was one such building, and we have references to other Mithraic cathedrals, some of which were later turned into fire-temples by the Sasanians. The buildings in Old Nisa and Kishan monuments open another chapter in the story. It is unthinkable that the Roman Empire, where the official religion was Mithraism for almost half-a-millennium, or at least as it is admitted, several of the emperors were outspoken followers of Mithra, the only house of the worship for the emperors and the Roman nobility should have been confined to underground crypts which were used for community chapels. That part of the building in the baths of Caracalla set apart for worship show that magnificent halls were also dedicated for Mithraic worship. The basilica of Trajan is another such temple. Trajan is depicted elsewhere with the Mithraic Cap of Liberty, and while we are mentioning Trajan let me throw out this thought for consideration that the wars of the Romans against the Parthians were in many instances a proto-type of the later Crusades in the Middle Ages, that is to say, an attempt to posses the Holy Land where Mithra was born and had preached. Mehrayns or Mirans or Milans were scattered all over the ancient world as great centers of Mithraism from Milan in Italy to numerous Milans and Mirans in Iran to Miran near lake 'Lob Nor' not far from Turfan. The Cult and the Doctrine From the extant remains, literary and archaeological, of the religion of Mithra, we gather that the salvation of man, after the slaying of the Bull, is symbolized in the obtaining of blessed eternal life by partaking the holy meal in the community of the brethren. The Iranian origin of this divine supper is proved by the terminology. In the Armenian rites the meat is nishkhark, Persian Nushkhare, the edible thing of immortality, the corresponding liquid element nushabe, the water of immortality. The whole meal is the eucharistia, the Greek form of Iranian hu-khoresht, the good meal, the divine meal. The two ancient Iranian words for the holy repast in the Gathas are myazda and myastra; one gives the Persian miz and Latin mass, and the other gives Greek musterion, mystery. That is why Mithraism as well as Christianity are mystery religions. Secrecy is not essential to the myastra. As regards the word Messiah itself, it might be interesting to point out that the western Iranian form is Missa, and the eastern misi, possible originals of the Arabic and Hebrew forms of the word which were popular etymology related to the root for rubbing and anointing, and incidentally for the first time used in the Bible for an Iranian, Cyrus. The word would then mean mediator, supported by Plutarch's mesites and confirmed in the Sorkh Kotal inscription. In the divine meal, the Lord's Supper, apparently the Cup used for the nushabe became the holiest object in the service. That cup figures very prominently in Persian literature and especially in the mystical poems. The cup has seven lines or measures corresponding to the seven degrees in Mithraism. The full cup is for the Pir or the Father, who is know as the Pir of the seven lines. In the West it gave rise to the "Graded cup", Latin gradalis> grail. The story of the Holy Grail as well as the Arthurian legends will occupy our attention at another meeting. Remnants of Mithraism As to remnants of Mithraism in Iran, at its best it survives in Iranian mysticism represented by the Divan-e Shams, the Golshan-e Raz, and above all, in the poems of Hafez, and of course in the string influence it exerted on Islamic Sufism, which is quite distinct from Iranian mysticism. In sects, there is a survival of Mithraism in the Ahl-e Haq and the Yazidis, and other small sects scattered in closed communities. In Europe the remnants such as the medieval Albigensis and Bogomils are considered to be Manicheans. No doubt that they were influenced by Manichean doctrines just as the Christian Church was, but they are more likely to be remnants of the followers of Mithra, and the case of the Bogomils is more clear in as much as the name composed of Bog, bagh, special title of Mithra, and mil, the same word as Mihr, which in the Slavic languages even carries the meaning of live as in Persian mehr. Bogomil is then the etymological and semantic equivalent of the Soghdian Bagh Misi. It is written in the Bayan al- Adyan, that "the Manicheans say that Jesus called men to Zoroaster." From the book Right Ginza (ancient Mandaean texts), we find a chapter on Jesus called Jesus, the “False Messiah,” which, of course, is never mentioned or quoted by Christians as proof of Jesus’s historical existence as their Savior (pg. 240-1): 139. After that I explain to you, my faithful. When Nbu (Mercury) comes from the midst of the angels of deficiency, Ruha d-Gudsa, his mother, calls him. On the crown of heaven and earth, on Mount Tabdana , the angels of deficiency meet. They anoint Nbu with the horn of oil and they clothe him in fire. […] 142. Then he prepares a stepladder, he places it between the surface of the earth and the sky, he goes up and down, he dangles between earth and sky and says to you: “See that I come from on High; I am your Lord!” But do not believe him. For the ladder of Msiha [Jesus] is made of illusion, sorcery and trickery. Where Msiha is, he blinds your eyes, he covers up the splendor of the sun and speaks to the sun: “Cover up your splendor!” But the sun does not cover up his splendor. So [Misiha] brings darkness to the place where he is [an eclipse], by sorcery, and says to you: “See, I have spoken to the sun and have covered up his splendor, for I am God, the savior.” … 144. In these guises he comes, makes prisoners in the world, leads astray the children of men and brings them his wisdom. They call themselves “God-fearers” and “righteous.” He calls them “Christians.” He transforms them into “God-fearers,” both men and women. He calls them “God-fearers,” “saints,” and “righteous,” both men and women. 249. “Jesus replies: “We wish to sell all our goods, go up the Jordan, and have ourselves baptized in the name of the man who passed beyond you.” And Christ says: “O deceived ones, you who have been deceived! Did you ever see, when you were in your bodies, that a child, once it left its mother’s body, was then put back again inside its mother? … Do you not know, O you deceived, that you have been deceived? I am a good for nothing messiah (msiha), flayed for my torment, wise for evil, he who modifies the doors of sleep, utterly distorts the works of the spirit, leads pious men astray and throws them down into the powerful clouds of darkness. When I showed you bolts and keys [to enter into heaven], I beguiled you and created longing in you. I gave you gold and silver so that you would keep me company in the darkness, in is place in which we now find ourselves.”…” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] The Story of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe, 1929, pg. 169. [2] Thrice-greatest Hermes: Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and Gnosis, by George Robert Stow Mead, 1906, pg. 160. [3] The Panarion of Epiphanius of S |
| My Response:
OneLove, Thanks so much for responding. You're the first person to provide me with any kind of evidence. I did have four other people promise to give me evidence, but I haven't heard from any of them since. I did read your entire letter and will post it, in its entirety, at my site (let me know if you don't want me to). After spending 3 days at the university library, I was able to verify nearly all of the claims presented by Acharya S and Zeitgeist, with very minor errors in interpretation. I don't know if you've seen the Zeitgeist Challenge site (www.zeitgeistchallenge.com ), but they're offering $250 for anyone who can prove the movie's claims. But they are asking for people to prove 100% of the claims before receiving any money, while I'm only asking for 50% of any one list(though 100% of a list if you want the full thousand). As far as Horus and the Zeitgeist info, have you read the Companion to Zeitgeist? It has strong support for the Horus connections. Since that’s already published, as well as a new book by Prof. John Rush called Failed God that further delves into the Christian/Egyptian ties, I won’t bother to present them here, but instead refer you to these sources. If there's evidence for them, I'll ask those who defend the movie to provide the evidence. From what I've seen, though, their "evidence" amounts to one "christ-myther" just quoting another "christ-myther", which I don't consider evidence. If these things really happened in these deity stories, then I expect to see the stories in which they happened, and no one seems to be able to find them. I found various ancient textual sources on Jstor.org to support Mithra with 12 helpers, born of a virgin, etc, as well as Horus/ Zoroaster, etc. I can't access www.Jstor.org. As long as the texts aren't just one christ-myther quoting another christ-myther, then please copy them for me. The problem with the story of Mithra being misunderstood in the west is that he had a twin brother, Yima, who composed half of himself: one good, one evil. It’s sort of like the concept of Yin/Yang. Both are one, yet at the same time opposites – light/dark, day/night, good/bad, god/devil. So Mithra had 12 helpers, six of good, six of evil. Unfortunately, after going to the Library I’ve lost my document for this specific citation – I had to reinstall my Windows and lost the documents that I had saved, but I’ve found several other very good ones, below. However, if you search JStor.org at any University Library, these citations were not difficult to find. If you can find the documents again, let me know. I need you to provide them before I'll consider you to have fulfilled those parts of my challenge. I assume you don't want me to find them myself, since, if I do, then I would owe myself the money, not you. Just paypal me the money to this email address. I need the documents before I'll paypal you any money. And keep in mind that you only get the full $1000 if you give evidence for all 17 items on the Mithra list. But if you can give evidence for at least half (in this case, 9), I'll give you a percentage of the money equal to the percentage of the list that you give evidence for. A clarified/corrected list of verified similarities between Jesus and Mithra should read: · Mithra was born on December 25th. As you saw on my site, I don't allow the "12/25 birthday" parallel as a valid item, since Jesus almost certainly was not born on that date. If you can show that Jesus was believed, in the 1st century A.D., to have been born on that date, then I'll re-admit it. · He had 12 companions or helpers – six good and six evil. I'll need to see your documentation on this one before I'll consider this one fulfilled. · He performed miracles. Actually, I agree that he did, per pre-Christian mythology, so this one will be a "gimme" for you. · He was buried in a rock tomb. I didn't see any evidence in support of this one in your information. If you have any, let me know. · After three days he rose again. Again, I didn't see this one addressed in your letter. · His resurrection was celebrated every year. Or this one, at least per pre-Christian mythology. · Mithra’s brother, Yima, was called “the Good Shepherd.” You did address that Mithra had a brother called Yima, but I didn't see anything in your letter regarding the "Good Shepherd" title. If you can provide it for Yima, I'll consider this one fulfilled. · Mithra was considered “the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.” I didn't see this one addressed in your information, either. · He was often identified with both the Lion and the Lamb. Or this one. · His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. Or this one. · Mithra had a principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. Or this one, at least for pre-Christian mythology. · His religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.” You didn't address this one, either. If you can provide evidence for all of the claims you listed above, that will be enough to get a percentage of the money. Not counting the "12/25 birthday" one, those are 11 of the 17, so you would get $647. But I do want some evidence first, and I haven't seen you provide any yet for the above claims. An early Christian work, the 'Paschal Chronicle' (Migne ed. xcii, col. 385), tells us that every year the temples of Horus presented to worshipers, in mid-winter (or about December 25th), a scenic model of the birth of Horus. He was represented as a babe born in a stable, his mother Isis standing by. Just in the same way is the birth of Christ dramatized today in every Roman Catholic church in the world on December 25th. The Roman writer Macrobius makes the same statement about the representation of the birth of Horus in the temples…and adds that the young god was a symbol of the rebirth of the sun at that date. The fact is, at all events, beyond question. We are brought to the very threshold of Christianity. The whole world by the year 1 A.D. was familiar with the Egyptian statues or pictures of Isis with the divine babe Horus in her arms.[1] ~ Joseph McCabe, The Story of Religious Controversy, pg. 169 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Paschal Chronicle was written in the 7th century A.D., so this isn't evidence that Horus worshippers did this stuff prior to Jesus' time. If Horus worshippers were doing this stuff in the 7th century A.D., that doesn't suggest that it influenced what happened in the 1st century. And I'll agree that the statue of Isis holding the baby Horus was pre-Christian, but all it proves is that Horus had a mommy, as did Jesus. So did everyone else, for that matter, so it doesn't suggest any specific parallel between Horus and Jesus. In 375 CE, Epiphanius, Biship of Constantia, described the similarities between Jesus’ birth and the pagan winter solstice celebrations. But we're talking about 4th-century celebrations. I think we can safely say that 4th-century celebrations didn't influence anything that happened in the 1st century. Anyway, while the rest of your letter made some interesting, though perhaps still questionable, points, I didn't see anything that specifically addressed the claims of your "clarified/corrected" list. I read the entire thing, but if you did provide some evidence for those claims that I missed, please do point it out. David |
| OneLove responded:
Unfortunately I really, honestly, lost all of the other files that I had to support this. Fortunately, however, the university is not far. But I’ll have to dedicate a lot more time to pulling them up again and time is tight. I have a family. I know a professor who actually reads from the Egyptian texts – tattooed head to toe – on this body. Funny, but which texts would you like? … and they’re the real scripts. Anyway, I mentioned him to you already, Professor John Rush and his new book Failed God. I’ll be more than happy to settle for 55% of this if I don’t have to go back to the library for 3 days, cause that’s about what it will cost me anyway in time there – based on the evidence already presented… and Epiphanius is a slam dunk. And I can prove to you about the Dec. 25 thing too… And these are church fathers arguing this, so your argument is really falsely placed. but anyway… you can chose to settle now or I’ll take you for all your money. Am I bluffing? No. But maybe we can work something out together… I’ve got to ask, did you read Acharya S’ new books? Everyone attacks her work from 1999… but they miss the four books she wrote to substantiate that work. Even the famed Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Dr. Robert Eisenman endorses her work today. I know a lot of people used to try to argue that her work wasn’t academically accepted, but that’s just not so as I know several academics who’ve told me personally that they love her research – as Eisenman can attest. I’ve actually been sitting on these references for quite some time… hence losing several in computer crashes… Windows. I have no nice words to say about that. |
| I responded:
OneLove, I'm primarily interested in making my site as accurate as possible, so if you can provide evidence for 100% of the claims on the list, then I'd rather see all of the evidence instead of settling for only some of the evidence, even if it costs me more money. If you can provide evidence for 55% of the claims and you decide to settle for that instead of going for the full $1000, that's certainly your choice. But personally, I'd rather see you go for the full $1000. Though I do understand how family can keep you busy, having a wife and four daughters myself. As I stated on my site, I need to see evidence for at least 50% of the claims on the list before I'll give you any of the money. And you have not given evidence for at least 50% of the claims on the list. You declared certain claims to be valid, but didn't provide any evidence that validates them. So settling now would not get you any of the money. You certainly provided a lot of information in your letter, but little if any of it provided any kind of evidence for the claims on the Mithra list. If you can provide evidence for the "Dec 25" thing for Jesus' birthday, I would like to see it, though that's up to you. Again, I'm looking for evidence that this was believed to be Jesus' birthday in the 1st century. All evidence that I've seen so far says it was assigned in the early 4th century, or maybe late 3rd. David |
| OneLove Responded:
Info regarding your false claim to 1st century Christians and Jesus’ Dec. 25 birth. I’ll have to see if I can get back to the library to access those academic databases again. I do have access to one other from home and I’ll see if it has any of the necessary peer reviewed journals that Jstor.org has that I’ve already gone through. There was so much there to refute your claims and not take you seriously, that it really didn’t seem necessary for me at the time to properly back up the files, and as I said I lost them. I’m not sure if you’re aware, it doesn’t seem like it, but JStor.org is a website that hosts specifically peer reviewed academic journals. It’s not one scholar just quoting another, as you falsely accuse Acharya, et al, without even reading their books - which is clear, BTW, that you haven’t studied the material by the authors you attack. That’s always the case… Since your own religion didn’t settle the date until the 4th century, you’re using a logical fallacy by asking me to provide documentation from the 1st century. There is none. Here I historically refute and denounce your request as based on unsound logic based on the historical distortions of your own religion. In fact, why don’t YOU provide your evidence which refutes the following, otherwise I’ll take it that you’re accepting this material as refutation against your Christian notion that Jesus was not born on Dec. 25: "As the annual rebirth of the sun's light, the winter solstice was important in most parts of the world. In fact, the Romans already had an ancient winter festival whose seven days bracketed the solstice.... Choosing the birth of Christ as December 25 successfully integrated long-standing popular traditions with the imagery of a new religion, and the theme of renewal is still part of Christmas." Dr. Edwin C. Krupp, Echoes of the Ancient Skies (81) "The well-known solar feast…of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date [for Christ's Nativity]." Catholic Encyclopedia, "Christmas" "An early Christian work, the 'Paschal Chronicle' (Migne ed. xcii, col. 385), tells us that every year the temples of Horus presented to worshipers, in mid-winter (or about December 25th), a scenic model of the birth of Horus. He was represented as a babe born in a stable, his mother Isis standing by. Just in the same way is the birth of Christ dramatized today in every Roman Catholic church in the world on December 25th. The Roman writer Macrobius makes the same statement about the representation of the birth of Horus in the temples…and adds that the young god was a symbol of the rebirth of the sun at that date. The fact is, at all events, beyond question. We are brought to the very threshold of Christianity. The whole world by the year 1 A.D. was familiar with the Egyptian statues or pictures of Isis with the divine babe Horus in her arms." Joseph McCabe, The Story of Religious Controversy (169) Although many people remain unaware of the real meaning behind "Christmas," one of the better known correspondences between pre-Christian religion and Christianity has been the celebration of the god's birth on the 25th of December. Nevertheless, it has been argued that this comparison is erroneous because Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th, an assertion in itself that would come as a surprise to many, since up until just a few years ago only a miniscule percentage of people knew such a fact. In any event, this argument constitutes a logical fallacy, because over the centuries since the holiday was implemented by Christian authorities, hundreds of millions of people have celebrated Jesus's birthday on December 25th, or Christmas, so named after Christ. Moreover, hundreds of millions continue to celebrate the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus Christ, completely oblivious to the notion that this date does not represent the "real" birthday of the Jewish son of God.1 In actuality, it would be highly refreshing for the facts regarding the true meaning of Christmas to be known around the world: To wit, "Christmas"—or the winter solstice—represents the birth of the sun god dating back millennia. Concerning the origins of this solar holiday vis-a-vis Christianity, the authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia states: The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in [the writings of Church father] Cyprian [200-258]…"O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born." 1 In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 847, officially declaring December 25th to be the birthday of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: "Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ…" In the fourth century, Chrysostom…says:… "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December…the eight before the calends of January [25 December]…, But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord…? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice."1 As we can see from these revealing remarks, the birth of Christ at the winter solstice has been asserted since as early as the 3rd century. Moreover, the reason for this birthdate is clearly given: This date represents "the birthday of the Sun!" Regarding Christ's birth and the establishment of Christmas, Christian apologist Thomas Thorburn relates: The earliest church commemorated it at various times from September to March, until in 354 A.D. Pope Julius I assimilated the festival with that of the birth of Mithra (December 25), in order to facilitate the more complete Christianisation of the empire.2 Thus, Christ's birth at the winter solstice was not formalized until the fourth century—and this fact demonstrates a deliberate contrivance by Christian officials to usurp other religions, as we contend the entire Christian religion was specifically created to do. Prior to its celebration as the birthday of Jesus Christ, the 25th of December/winter solstice was claimed as the birthday for a number of other gods and godmen, including the Perso-Roman god Mithra and the Greek god Dionysus.3 So too, apparently, do we find this annual celebration in Egypt concerning the sun god, which represents the "birth" of the "new sun" after the "old sun" "dies" around December 21st (in the northern hemisphere), lying in his "tomb" or "cave" for three days and on December 25th being "born again." There appears to be frequent confusion regarding the dates of December 21st, 22nd and 25th. The fact is that all of them represent the time of the winter solstice, which begins at midnight on the 21st—equivalent to the morning of the 22nd—and ends at midnight on the 24th, which is the morning of December 25th. To summarize, in the solar myth the "death" of the "old sun" occurs as the days decrease in length towards the winter solstice, the word "solstice" meaning "sun stands still," as for three days the sun appears not to be moving south or north. Hence, it was considered "dead" and did not "return to life" until three days later, at midnight on December 24th, when it began its northerly journey again. Therefore, the ancients said the sun was born on December 25th. In this regard, it has been the frequent contention of writers since antiquity that the Egyptians likewise celebrated the birth of the sun at the winter solstice, a logical conclusion, considering the reverence with which the sun was held in Egypt . Concerning this cycle in Egypt, in "Isis and Osiris" (ch. 65), Plutarch remarked that Horus—or "Harpocrates," his Greek name—was "born about the winter solstice, unfinished and infant-like..."4 A couple of centuries after Plutarch, in his Saturnalia (I, XVIII:10), ancient Latin writer of the fourth century Macrobius also reported on this annual Egyptian "Christmas" celebration: …at the winter solstice the sun would seem to be a little child, like that which the Egyptians bring forth from a shrine on an appointed day, since the day is then at its shortest and the god is accordingly shown as a tiny infant.5
1 CE, "Christmas." As to the antiquity of the Egyptian winter-solstice, solar-birth drama depicted by Plutarch and Macrobius, Professor Orlando P. Schmidt makes some interesting claims regarding the Egyptian king Amenemhet or Amenemhat I (c. 1991/1985-c. 1962/1956 BCE), called in Greek "Amenemes" or "Ammenemes," founder of the 12th dynasty: Now, as the sun of the Sothiac year reached the winter solstice in the seventeenth year of the reign of King Amenemes I, he assumed the title of Nem-mestu, meaning "Re-born," in commemoration of his birth as Harpokrates.1 Thus, according to Schmidt the birth of Harpocrates at the winter solstice apparently dates back to almost 2,000 years prior to the Christian era, a tradition evidently verified by Plutarch. This epithet "Nem-mestu" is the king's "Horus name" and means "repeater of births," "repetition of births" or "reborn." Regarding this title, Budge says:..."nem mestu," i.e., "repeater of births," the allusion being to the idea that the king was like the Sun-god Re who was reborn daily; this title became a great favorite with the kings of the XIIth Dynasty.2 Budge thus verifies that this particular Horus name was indeed popular in the dynasty in question. Intriguingly, according to Budge the Egyptian word for winter solstice is nen, which would make a Horus name of "Nen-mestu" equivalent to "born of the winter solstice." Also according to Budge, citing German Egyptologist Professor Heinrich Brugsch, the hieroglyphic for the winter solstice reveals two deities holding the sun with its rays extending down over an ankh,3 the symbol of life. If these two deities surrounding the sun being given life are indeed Osiris and Isis, as they appear to be, this hieroglyph would represent a clear indication that their child, Horus, was in fact born at the winter solstice. In any case, this Horus name "repeaters of births" as a reflection of the sun god's birth, whether daily, annually or both, dates back thousands of years in Egypt , and the significance of the winter solstice in Egypt , as well as its perception as the birth of the sun god, seems evident. In the Egyptian language, Harpocrates is "Her-pa-chruti" or "Heru-pa-Chrat," "the morning sun."4 On the subject of Plutarch and Harpocrates, Budge remarks: The curious legend which Plutarch relates concerning Harpocrates and the cause of his lameness is probably based upon the passage in the history of Osiris and Isis given in a hymn to Osiris of the XVIIIth Dynasty.5 Budge never seems to return to this "curious legend," apparently coming from chapter 19 of Plutarch, which omits the pertinent part about Harpocrates representing the weak or "lame" sun of the winter solstice, as in chapter 65. Concerning the Osirian myth presented in Plutarch, in Egyptian Ideas of the Future, Budge remarks: When we examine this story by the light of the results of hieroglyphic decipherment, we find that a large portion of it is substantiated by Egyptian texts...6 Budge proceeds to name many of the most significant details from Plutarch as having been verified by hieroglyphics, including texts, inscriptions, papyri, etc. The passage from
1 Schmidt, 19. Plutarch quoted here by Budge is also from chapter 19 and, again, although mentioning the birth of Harpocrates, lacks the pertinent part about the winter solstice found in chapter 65. In neither book, in fact, does Budge describe the assertion in chapter 65. Perhaps as a professed Christian, Budge did not wish to reproduce these significant remarks concerning the "Christmas" birth of the Egyptian sun god. From comments by various writers of the time, it appears there was indeed a debate as to whether or not to accept the "opinions of the Greek" with regard to Harpocrates's nature as the sun born at the winter solstice. One must therefore ask whether or not this debate about the "correctness" of the ancient Greeks in their assertions regarding this figure—a debate continued by apologists today—has been based on scientific reasoning or religious prejudice, representing an intentional suppression and censorship of pertinent data. And, if the bulk of Plutarch's summary of the myth of Osiris, Isis and Horus is sustainable through Egyptian writings, as Budge himself states, can we not assume that this winter-solstice part would be reliable as well? If Horus was not born at the winter solstice, why does Plutarch state that he was, in his form as Harpocrates or Horus the Child? Why does Macrobius record an Egyptian festival of apparent antiquity that celebrated the birth of the baby sun at the winter solstice? Would the Egyptians—who were so keenly aware of astronomy, solar mythology and astrotheology—truly be completely oblivious to, or deliberately unaffected by, the revered status of the sun at the winter solstice? Certainly the Egyptians were highly conscious of the all-important solstices—as demonstrated abundantly by the al ignments of their monuments—could they possibly fail to integrate them into their solar religion? Indeed, according to Budge the solstices were personified as gods. In fact, Budge claims that the personification of the winter solstice is the god "Ap-uat,"1 while Renouf says Apuat is "identical with Osiris."2 Thus, Osiris would represent the winter solstice, making this time of year highly significant to the Egyptians. Furthermore, it is agreed that in Egypt "the summer solstice was paramount, for it heralded the rise of the Nile ."3 As Herodotus states, the Nile began to overflow around the summer solstice—specifically named as such by Herodotus (1:19). The Greek historian further remarks that the river continues to rise for about 100 days, at which point it levels off and then starts to drop again, remaining low throughout winter.4 This life-giving time of year was so important to the Egyptians that at periods over the millennia they opened the new year with the summer inundation of the Nile . During other periods, apparently, the year began at the winter solstice, which would be indicative that such a time was considered the "birth of the sun," as in so many other cultures. In Horae Aegyptiacae: Or, the Chronology of Ancient Egypt , Discovered from Astronomical and Hieroglyphic Records Upon Its Monuments, Egyptologist and professor of Archaeology Dr. Reginald Stuart Poole, another Keeper at the British Museum , states: "The Season of the Waters," in the ancient nomenclature, plainly shows that the Tropical Year to which that nomenclature was originally applied commenced at the winter solstice, and not at, nor near, either of the equinoxes, or the summer solstice... Thus we find that the true period of the commencement of "the Season of the Inundation" was one month before the autumnal equinox; and the end, at the winter
1 Budge, TGE, 264. solstice; and, consequently, that the Tropical Year anciently in use among the Egyptians commenced at the winter solstice, when all things in Egypt begin anew.1 Obviously, the Egyptians were well aware of the winter solstice, which they evidently identified with Osiris and other gods at some point and which during certain eras or in various places opened with Egyptian year. Concerning these important times of the year, astronomer Sir Lockyer remarks: Did the ancients know anything about these solstices and these equinoxes? That is one of the questions which we have to discuss. Dealing with the monumental evidence in Egypt alone, the answer is absolutely overwhelming.2 Lockyer next describes a number of astronomical alignments of various monuments and buildings in Egypt , beginning with the temple enclosure at Karnak . Calling the temple of Amen-Ra at Karnak the "finest Egyptian solar temple" and "the most majestic ruin in the world,"3 Lockyer dated its foundation to 3700 BCE, using astronomical measurements.4 Encompassing twice the area covered by St. Peter's in Rome , the complex comprised "two temples in the same line back to back, the chief one facing the sunset at the summer solstice, the other probably the sunrise at the winter solstice."5 Concerning the smaller temple, Lockyer states: The amplitude of the point to which the axis of the small temple points is 26o S. of E., exactly the position of sunrise at the winter solstice. There is more evidence of this kind....6 Lockyer then discusses the colossal statues of Amenhetep III on the plain of Thebes, which were oriented to watch "for the rising of the sun at the winter solstice."7 Astronomer Dr. Edwin C. Krupp likewise comments on the winter-solstice alignment of Egyptian buildings: Winter solstice sunrise alignment was also found at the solar sanctuary in Hatshepsut's mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri, and these sanctuaries were linked with the Egyptian beliefs about the passage of Re through the netherworld and the transformation of the soul of the deceased pharaoh.8 The Temple of Amun-Ra at Abu Simbel , built by Ramses II, ranks as another edifice aligned with sunrise at the winter solstice.9 In the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt ("EAAE") appears a discussion of the small temple at Aghurmi in the Siwa Oasis. This temple possesses a window in the west wall of the sanctuary that connects with an opposite window opposite, producing a lightshaft which illuminates the "god's barge naos in the center of the sanctuary." EAAE then states:
1 Poole, 4-5. The fact that Onuris and Tefnut are represented right next to this window and the mythology connected with these two gods suggest that occurrence of this event to have coincided with the winter solstice.1 Hence, we find multiple astronomical alignments proving that the ancient Egyptians highly valued the winter solstice. Moreover, a number of ancient Egyptian water clocks, such as at Karnak , were designed to measure the winter and summer solstices.2 Indeed, that the Egyptians were keen measurers of time may be seen in an inscription from the tomb of the Karnak clock's creator, a "certain official" named Amenemhet who was buried "near the top of the hill of Sheikh Abd el-Gurna in Western Thebes ." This very ancient inscription describes the measurements of the "longest night of wintertime" and the "shortest night of summertime," the former of which, of course, would be the winter solstice and the latter, the summer. This inscription also refers to Egyptian sacred literature as "the books of the divine word,"3 demonstrating the reverence with which these texts were held, no less than the holy books of today. The official in question dedicated his clock to Amenhotep I, who reigned in the 18th Dynasty, during the 16th century BCE. In Ancient Egyptian Science, professor of Historical Studies Dr. Marshall Clagett (1916-2005) depicts another ancient Egyptian clock used to measure the equinoxes and solstices: The first (and indeed only) Egyptian technical description of an ancient Egyptian shadow clock is found in an inscription in the cenotaph of Seti I (ca. 1306-1290 [BCE])...4 Dr. Clagett also describes an Egyptian sundial from Luxor that apparently dates to the "Greco-Roman period" and that possesses marks to measure, among other things, the winter solstice.5 As another example of Egyptian astronomical knowledge and the particular importance of the winter solstice, in 46 BCE famed Alexandria astronomer Sosigenes created a new solar calendar for Julius Caesar, called the Julian Calendar: "The new system, depending wholly on the sun, would naturally have commenced with the winter solstice,"6 called bruma in Latin, one source of the Roman celebration the Brumalia.7 In The Sacred Tradition in Ancient Egypt, Rosemary Clark describes another festival that purportedly took place on the winter solstice: As the winter solstice denotes the literal decline of solar light, festivals celebrated at this time are connected with the renewal of the life force. One of these festivals was the annual raising of the Djed pillar of Asar [Osiris] at his great temple at Busiris in Lower Egypt. This was a symbolic restoration of the Neter's [God's] life, an event
1 EAAE, 742. The djed-pillar is a very ancient "cult icon of Osiris" that was "erected in a rite symbolizing Osiris's revivification after death."2 The raising of the djed-pillar at Busiris is mentioned in chapter 18 of the Book of the Dead. The month of Choiach/Khoiak/Koiak corresponding to December comes from the Coptic calendar and is presumably an accurate rendering of an ancient Egyptian dating system. In Calendrical Calculations, Professors Dershowitz and Reingold state: The Christian Copts, modern descendants of the Pharaonic Egyptians, use a calendar based on the ancient Egyptian solar calendar...but with leap years.3 Dershowitz and Reingold further say that "the Copts celebrate Christmas on Koiak 29 (which is always either December 25 or 26 on the Julian calendar)..."4 Modern Egyptians also still celebrate a festival around the vernal equinox called "Sham el-Nessim," or "Shamo," which traditionally occurs in April and closely resembles the Western celebration of Easter. Since this spring festival is estimated to date to at least 4,500 years ago, it would be reasonable to assert that comparable winter-solstice celebrations may approach that age in Egypt as well. Knowing all these facts, it is logical and rational to assume that Plutarch and Macrobius were not in error in their reports about the Egyptian sun god celebrated at the winter solstice. If Macrobius is correct in his assertions that the Egyptians brought out an image of the baby sun at the winter solstice, we have no credible, scientific reason to dismiss Plutarch's statement regarding Harpocrates/Horus being this baby sun born at the winter solstice, especially since many of his contentions can be verified by the hieroglyphics, as stated by Budge. In fact, the "restoration of Osiris" at the winter solstice—which would essentially constitute his rebirth in Horus—is also related by Plutarch: Moreover, at the time of the winter solstice they lead the cow seven times around the temple of the Sun and this circumambulation is called the Seeking for Osiris, since the Goddess in the winter-time yearns for water; so many times do they go around, because in the seventh month the Sun completes the transition from the winter solstice to the summer solstice. It is said also that Horus, the son of Isis, offered sacrifice to the Sun first of all on the fourth day of the month, as is written in the records entitled the Birthdays of Horus.5 Although here Plutarch discusses Osiris's water aspect, logic would indicate that the god's solar nature was also being sought at the winter solstice, when the sun is viewed as "weakening," "dying" or otherwise diminishing, in line with the shortening days of the years. Furthermore, the "Seeking of Osiris" at the solstice is confirmed by the conservative Encyclopedia Britannica as one of the Egyptians' "most characteristic celebrations":
1 Clark, 131. Among those most characteristic celebrations of the Egyptians were those which took place at the afa??sµ?? or disappearance of Osiris in October or November, at the search for his remains, and their discovery about the winter solstice...1 The discovery of Osiris's remains at the winter solstice means that he was "born again" at that time, since he was thereafter resuscitated. Because Horus and Osiris were one and interchangeable, the new sun replacing the old, it could be truthfully stated that the "rebirth" of Osiris at the winter solstice represents the "new birth" of Horus. Hence, again we find Horus being born on December 25th. |
| I responded:
Info regarding your false claim to 1st century Christians and Jesus’ Dec. 25 birth. I’ll have to see if I can get back to the library to access those academic databases again. I do have access to one other from home and I’ll see if it has any of the necessary peer reviewed journals that Jstor.org has that I’ve already gone through. There was so much there to refute your claims and not take you seriously, that it really didn’t seem necessary for me at the time to properly back up the files, and as I said I lost them. Please do find them and send them my way. I’m not sure if you’re aware, it doesn’t seem like it, but JStor.org is a website that hosts specifically peer reviewed academic journals. It’s not one scholar just quoting another, as you falsely accuse Acharya, et al, without even reading their books - which is clear, BTW, that you haven’t studied the material by the authors you attack. That’s always the case… If her books contain actual evidence that backs up her claims, then I welcome you to take the evidence from those books and present it to me. I've made my $1000 offer to several websites, many of whom took their material directly from Acharya. But none of them have been able to provide me with any evidence to back up her claims. As it is, I've spent a lot of time debating atheists at sites like www.theologyweb.com, and the atheists there don't even take Acharya seriously, and would never use her as a source for information. Since your own religion didn’t settle the date until the 4th century, you’re using a logical fallacy by asking me to provide documentation from the 1st century. There is none. Yes, I'm aware that there is none, as I said in my last letter. That's why I don't consider the "12/25" birthdate to be a valid comparison. The date was assigned around the 4th century, about 300 years after Jesus' time. The people who assigned apparently did not really believe that Jesus was born on that date. Here I historically refute and denounce your request as based on unsound logic based on the historical distortions of your own religion. In fact, why don’t YOU provide your evidence which refutes the following, otherwise I’ll take it that you’re accepting this material as refutation against your Christian notion that Jesus was not born on Dec. 25: The material you present here completely agrees with what I've been saying. If you believe the material you're presenting, then you must agree with me that 12/25 was assigned to coincide with other festivals, and not because that was the date on which Jesus was believed to actually have been born. Right? In fact, one of the items you quoted says this: "Moreover, hundreds of millions continue to celebrate the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus Christ, completely oblivious to the notion that this date does not (emphasis mine) represent the "real" birthday of the Jewish son of God." So the material you presented actually AGREES with my notion that Jesus was not born on Dec. 25. It doesn't refute it at all. And since Jesus was not believed to have been born on 12/25, showing that other deities were believed to have been born on 12/25 does not constitute a parallel. David |
| OneLove responded:
That’s seriously an apologetic take, and putting the cart before the horse. The reason Jesus birthday is on Dec. 25 is for the simple fact that Christianity evolved out of other religions – as the rest of the evidence shows, and the ties to Horus, Isis, and many others show – not to mention the fact that the Christian cathedrals were built on top of the very pagan temples that were usurped. And as the very fact of the Epiphanius text proves, which in and of itself was censured for 1000 years by the Christians, that Jesus Christ’s birthday is based on the Calculation of the solstice, period. Furthermore, the texts presented prove, beyond all doubt, that the other religions in the direct vicinity also believed in virgin born gods, so Jesus is nothing significant. It’s naive at best to think that Christianity was born suddenly at the birth of God’s son – a creation of Neolithic human imagination – and that all of the other cultures suddenly plagiarized Christianity and this virgin born son of god – and not the other way around. But even this argument would force you to change your own position. And by the way, Jews don’t consider Jesus the son of God or the Messiah. And how do you answer to the ancient Mithraic texts provided by Professor Mogdham regarding the existence of a Persian Jesus character in 300 BCE – clearly before the C.E. date you request? You admit that you’re already biased in your judgment of any evidence presented, and therefore splitting hairs of this absurd notion of a 1st century date – which you know doesn’t exist because Christianity in any form other than Zadokite, Gnostic, Essene, Mithraic and a frazzled, disoriented cult did not yet exist until the council of Nicea, and after. To put it simply, if the text I provided puts a character Jesus in Mithraic texts 300 years before your so-called son of God, then what purpose could your 1st century argument posses? Of course, you must take this quote literally, and therefore out of context, as if a person Jesus ever existed, which is not backed by anything but the Bible: In fact, one of the items you quoted says this: "Moreover, hundreds of millions continue to celebrate the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus Christ, completely oblivious to the notion that this date does not (emphasis mine) represent the "real" birthday of the Jewish son of God." You are ignoring the rest of the evidence presented, and focusing on this one sentence, twisting its meaning and purpose to suit your own needs. The sentence simply means that a literal birth of any “god’s son” in Christianity has nothing what so ever to do with the pagan celebration (or visa versa in your choice of wording) – which is established fact – this is ancient solstice celebration, period. No matter how Christian apologists twist history to make it look otherwise, or try to change the date of their so-called Savior’s birth in attempt to escape the facts. The material you present here completely agrees with what I've been saying. If you believe the material you're presenting, then you must agree with me that 12/25 was assigned to coincide with other festivals, and not because that was the date on which Jesus was believed to actually have been born. Right? The facts are, there was no orthodox form of Christianity in the 1st century. And furthermore, ancient groups like the Gnostics and Mandaeans did not believe that Jesus was a historical person! I can supply many ancient texts that show many great thinkers of the time criticizing Christians for believing that Jesus was literal, and anything but the sun. So therefore, there would be no evidence of a fictional character’s birth on that date (or any other), other than what your own Church fathers have adopted as “historical fact” (a conundrum of your own beliefs) – so no matter how the argument is presented, the Jesus Character can slip through the cracks, by your logic, as not being related to that date (hence your false exclusion of it in your argument – which is actually proof of your argument’s fallacy). You can’t supply anything other than the Bible, and a frivolous Josephus text that states the word “Christ” which had many applications, and simply meant one who was oil anointed – and doesn’t necessarily pertain anything to a so-called man named Jesus. And furthermore, millions of Christians everywhere, every year celebrate on Dec. 25, but no where in the Bible does it state this, or any of the Christian celebrations. They’re celebrated ipso facto, whether or not we can prove the celebrations in ancient texts. Which is also why it’s hard to prove these celebrations in ancient Egyptian texts. You can’t have a “real” birthday of a fictional character – and that’s why the birth date of Jesus was decided – Dec. 25. Yet I know that you will attempt to spin my above paragraph because of the same conundrum of proving that the Dec. 25 date is related to the solstice, and you’ll continue to spin it so that it therefore means the exclusion of, and not the birth date of, your savior. Just to point it out before you attempt it again, this is skittish and dishonest, circular logic. “Yes, I'm aware that there is none, as I said in my last letter. That's why I don't consider the "12/25" birthdate to be a valid comparison. The date was assigned around the 4th century, about 300 years after Jesus' time. The people who assigned apparently did not really believe that Jesus was born on that date.” What evidence do you have to support you September birthdate, or what ever date that you propose is NOT Dec. 25? If you’re going to argue that my evidence does not substantiate the fallacy of your god’s birthday and argument, then you must be able to prove your own position, your own birth date, and pull your own argument out of the circle in which you’ve attempted to encompass mine. And here is a bigger problem, if the Gospels are so accurate, and of the birth, life and Crucifixion of Jesus so well documented, then how come the followers of your own religion can’t agree on a date and took 400 years to make up their minds? So you debated other people who also hadn’t read Acharya’s books, and you all came to the conclusion that the research is bad? Did you ever consider to just read the books yourself? I know that may seem like a wild and crazy notion. But now are you saying that Dr. Robert Eisenman is ignorant for endorsing Acharya’s new book Who Was Jesus? Would you dare make such a claim without reading the book? So basically what you’re saying is that you protect your argument and the circular logic you encompass it in by NOT reading the books and authors you attack? I just want clarification. |
| I responded:
That’s seriously an apologetic take, and putting the cart before the horse. The reason Jesus birthday is on Dec. 25 is for the simple fact that Christianity evolved out of other religions – as the rest of the evidence shows, and the ties to Horus, Isis, and many others show. Sorry, but you need to actually present the evidence before you can convince me of what it shows. – not to mention the fact that the Christian cathedrals were built on top of the very pagan temples that were usurped. And as the very fact of the Epiphanius text proves, which in and of itself was censured for 1000 years by the Christians, that Jesus Christ’s birthday is based on the Calculation of the solstice, period. Exactly. It has nothing to do with when He was believed to have been born. Furthermore, the texts presented prove, beyond all doubt, that the other religions in the direct vicinity also believed in virgin born gods, so Jesus is nothing significant. But those texts don't show that those gods were believed to be virgin-born prior to Jesus' time, only that this was belived of them after Jesus' time. It’s naive at best to think that Christianity was born suddenly at the birth of God’s son – a creation of Neolithic human imagination – and that all of the other cultures suddenly plagiarized Christianity and this virgin born son of god – and not the other way around. Even if there's no evidence favoring that it was the other way around? But even this argument would force you to change your own position. And by the way, Jews don’t consider Jesus the son of God or the Messiah. And how do you answer to the ancient Mithraic texts provided by Professor Mogdham regarding the existence of a Persian Jesus character in 300 BCE – clearly before the C.E. date you request? He seems to be interpreting the evidence to fit his theory. You admit that you’re already biased in your judgment of any evidence presented, First, present the evidence. Then we'll see if I'm biased in my judgment of it. and therefore splitting hairs of this absurd notion of a 1st century date – which you know doesn’t exist because Christianity in any form other than Zadokite, Gnostic, Essene, Mithraic and a frazzled, disoriented cult did not yet exist until the council of Nicea, and after. You're welcome to your opinion, but what you're forgetting is that most (perhaps even all) of the New Testament was written in the 1st century. Practically everything we know about Jesus stems from those texts. They are the source for the historical Jesus, not the council of Nicea. The evidence that you presented shows that the 12/25 birthdate was not believed of the historical Jesus. To put it simply, if the text I provided puts a character Jesus in Mithraic texts 300 years before your so-called son of God, then what purpose could your 1st century argument posses? All that your texts show is that there was some confusion, long after Jesus' time, about when Jesus existed. In fact, one of Moghdam's sources, Tabari, disagrees with Moghdam's conclusions. Tabari said "The Persians think that Mary, daughter of Amran, gave birth to Jesus, son of Mary, sixty-five years after the domination of Alexander over the land of Babylon, but the Christians think the birth of Jesus occurred 303 years after the reign of Alexander," clearly stating that this is simply confusion over when the birth of Jesus occurred. Yeet Moghdam concludes that "these historians made a distinction between two Messiahs", wich Tabari clearly is not doing. Modhdam is clearly interpreting the evidence to fit his theory. Of course, you must take this quote literally, and therefore out of context, as if a person Jesus ever existed, which is not backed by anything but the Bible: Not true. He was also mentioned by non-Christian historians such as Josephus, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, not to mention many Christian writings that weren't in the Bible. In fact, one of the items you quoted says this: "Moreover, hundreds of millions continue to celebrate the 25th of December as the birth of Jesus Christ, completely oblivious to the notion that this date does not (emphasis mine) represent the "real" birthday of the Jewish son of God. You are ignoring the rest of the evidence presented, and focusing on this one sentence, twisting its meaning and purpose to suit your own needs. The sentence simply means that a literal birth of any “god’s son” in Christianity has nothing what so ever to do with the pagan celebration (or visa versa in your choice of wording) – which is established fact – this is ancient solstice celebration, period." Incorrect. Also according to the evidence you presented, "Prior to its celebration as the birthday of Jesus Christ, the 25th of December/winter solstice was claimed as the birthday for a number of other gods and godmen, including the Perso-Roman god Mithra and the Greek god Dionysus." So it wasn't simply about celebrating the winter solstice, but also about celebrating the births of pagan gods. The facts are, there was no orthodox form of Christianity in the 1st century. "Orthodox", perhaps, depending on how you define it. But there were certainly many Christians and many Christian texts written. And furthermore, ancient groups like the Gnostics and Mandaeans did not believe that Jesus was a historical person! The Gnostics generally believed that Jesus did exist. It was only some members of that religion that doubted it. The Mandaeans don't believe that Jesus existed, but neither do they believe that Mohomad existed, so I don't think we should be very impressed with them. In general, even Jesus' detractors agreed that He, at least, existed. So therefore, there would be no evidence of a fictional character’s birth on that date (or any other), other than what your own Church fathers have adopted as “historical fact” (a conundrum of your own beliefs) – so no matter how the argument is presented, the Jesus Character can slip through the cracks, by your logic, as not being related to that date (hence your false exclusion of it in your argument – which is actually proof of your argument’s fallacy). You can’t supply anything other than the Bible, and a frivolous Josephus text that states the word “Christ” which had many applications, and simply meant one who was oil anointed – and doesn’t necessarily pertain anything to a so-called man named Jesus. And furthermore, millions of Christians everywhere, every year celebrate on Dec. 25, but no where in the Bible does it state this, or any of the Christian celebrations. They’re celebrated ipso facto, whether or not we can prove the celebrations in ancient texts. Which is also why it’s hard to prove these celebrations in ancient Egyptian texts. When it comes to the 12/25 birthdate, I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on. We know it wasn't part of the historical story, but was assigned much later. You can’t have a “real” birthday of a fictional character – and that’s why the birth date of Jesus was decided – Dec. 25. Yet I know that you will attempt to spin my above paragraph because of the same conundrum of proving that the Dec. 25 date is related to the solstice, and you’ll continue to spin it so that it therefore means the exclusion of, and not the birth date of, your savior. Just to point it out before you attempt it again, this is skittish and dishonest, circular logic. We seem to be in agreement that it was assigned in the 3rd century to coincide with pagan solstice celebrations, so if this is "skittish and dishonest, circular logic" for me, then it's "skittish and dishonest, circular logic" for you, I suppose. Yes, I'm aware that there is none, as I said in my last letter. That's why I don't consider the "12/25" birthdate to be a valid comparison. The date was assigned around the 4th century, about 300 years after Jesus' time. The people who assigned apparently did not really believe that Jesus was born on that date. What evidence do you have to support you September birthdate, What September birthdate? or what ever date that you propose is NOT Dec. 25? I'm not proposing a specific birthdate for Jesus, so I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no evidence to support any specific birth date or month, since there isn't any. If you’re going to argue that my evidence does not substantiate the fallacy of your god’s birthday and argument, then you must be able to prove your own position, your own birth date, and pull your own argument out of the circle in which you’ve attempted to encompass mine. Huh? And here is a bigger problem, if the Gospels are so accurate, and of the birth, life and Crucifixion of Jesus so well documented, then how come the followers of your own religion can’t agree on a date and took 400 years to make up their minds? Because His birthdate was never recorded, of course. The Gospels didn't record every single detail of Jesus' life, and no one is saying it did. It's very sparse when it comes to events prior to His ministry. So you debated other people who also hadn’t read Acharya’s books, and you all came to the conclusion that the research is bad? Who said that they hadn't read them? I don't know if they had or not. Did you ever consider to just read the books yourself? I know that may seem like a wild and crazy notion. It's a little strange that you have her books available to you, yet you say that the evidence that would win you the challenge was lost when you had to reinstall Windows. Unless her books were on your hard drive, then you're pretty much admitting that the evidence in not in her books. Right? And if the evidence is not in her books, then I would be wasting my time to read them. But now are you saying that Dr. Robert Eisenman is ignorant for endorsing Acharya’s new book Who Was Jesus? Would you dare make such a claim without reading the book? When did I say he was ignorant? So basically what you’re saying is that you protect your argument and the circular logic you encompass it in by NOT reading the books and authors you attack? I just want clarification. I'm doing as most rational people would do and asking those who are presenting a claim to provide the evidence for that claim. You've already said that the evidence to back up the claims was on your hard drive, which means it must not be in her books (or if I'm wrong and it is, feel free to take it out and present it to me). As it is, if Acharya and her followers can't provide evidence in support of her claims, then I see no reason wasting my time in reading her books. The evidence clearly is not in them. Or, again, if it is in them, feel free to take it out and present it to me. David |