[Martyn*]

Not the resurrection of Jesus. You thought that didn't you? You did, didn't you?

In book 1, chapter 13 of Against Marcion, Tertullian remarks:

Thus Osiris also, whenever he is buried, and looked for to come to life again, and with joy recovered, is an emblem of the regularity wherewith the fruits of the ground return, and the elements recover life, and the year comes round...

Sic et Osiris quod semper sepelitur et in vivido quaeritur et cum gaudio invenitur, reciprocarum frugum et vividorum elementorum et recidivi anni fidem argumentantur....

The Latin in vivido means 'to come alive'. Tertullian is recounting the passion of Osiris. He is killed by Seth. In the Roman world the in vivido of Osiris was celebrated every spring (reciprocarum frugum), and hence Tertullians use of the words quod semper suggesting that Osiris' passion occured annually. Jesus' passion occured in the Spring.

During Roman times, it was thought that the Jews were the people associated with redhair, thus they were known as Typhonian. Typhon is the equivalent of Seth, and in the Christian Gospels Judas (who represents Judah) betrays Jesus.

But the passion occured again in the winter. This means that the waning of the sun during the winter was associated with Osiris death and resurrection, his rebirth also. The Egyptians believed that the dying sun entered the underworld to be reborn. At this time, according to the Egyptian myth, his son Horus was born in the winter solstice. This means that the comming of Horus was a portentious sign of the return of Osiris. Now, Osiris is an ancient god. He was more, more importantly, the god associated with the land of Anrutef or Ament in Egypt This was the land of the blind, the lame, and Osiris chose the people of that land as his own people. He was the great judge of those people and his son Horus was said to lead them in their death into the afterlife. They were trapped in the land of Anrutef, as Osiris was trapped there after being banished by the god Atum.

Anrutef was the portion of land the Israelites stayed in when Joseph met Pharaoh in the Old Testament: the land of Goshen. The god whom Moses told the Israelites of and whom he met at the burning bush in the land of Midian was not Yahweh, but Wasir (Osiris). Osiris was banished to Ament which was the equivalent of the land of Midian (MDN/MNT). Osiris entered Ament in a ball of fire. The pyramid texts make it clear that this fiery ball was the Aton, which is another name or code-word for Osiris.

Egyptologists have been aware of the connections between Moses, the Israelite Exodus and the time period coinciding with king Akhenaton (prophet of the Aton) for centuries. They knew that the Jews secretly had strands of tradition which they combined as one coming from Egypt, particularly that of the coming of the Messiah. But the main piece of wisdom from Egypt was the story of Osiris, the god who died (which was forbidden to be mentioned) and was resurrected (by his son, who was also the father), which was retold whether it was Moses or Joseph, both are semitic equivalents for Osiris (i.e., Joseph was placed in a coffin in Egypt, interpret dreams, overseer of the granaries, etc) The story of Osiris made its way into Gnosticism (as the Gnostic gems and magic spells no doubt prove) and into Christianity where it was pressed into an historical setting and used as a satire against King Herod.

It is easy to understand how this happened. One only has to look at the various traditions still alive today and realise that they have ancient antecedents. Freemasonry, for example, is still practiced today, and there is evidence to show that the same rites and teachings of ancient Freemasonry (wether Jewish or Egyptian) were handed down through the generations all the way from Sumer, Babylon, Judah and Egypt, through Greco-Roman times and all the way through the Holy Roman Empire. The outward appearance of the story might be different (see the story of the Phoenix and compare it with the stories of Jesus and Osiris), but they contain the same DNA, sometimes the stories are not that much different.

I think that John the divine made a mistake with the story of Lazarus, because that is the smoking gun, in my view.

[gltw]

I think you'll find the story of Ossiris does not appear until the second century AD therefore John could not have mistaken the account of Lazarus. All prominent ancient historians say this. It is only in modern times that people make claims then circulate them on the internet or even books. All attempts of individuals to show that Christianity borrowed ideas from Pagan religions were all refuted in the 19th century. The papers are still available for examination. Yet people fail to carry out such research before making claims which were refuted hundreds of years ago.

[pokemons]

It's YHVH not Yahweh

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gltw)
I think you'll find the story of Ossiris does not appear until the second century AD therefore John could not have mistaken the account of Lazarus. All prominent ancient historians say this. It is only in modern times that people make claims then circulate them on the internet or even books. All attempts of individuals to show that Christianity borrowed ideas from Pagan religions were all refuted in the 19th century. The papers are still available for examination. Yet people fail to carry out such research before making claims which were refuted hundreds of years ago.

The story of Osiris was transmitted to the Greeks by the Egyptians before Plutarch in the 2nd century AD. It is almost certain that Plutarch's sources were those he obtained from the Platonists. Plus, I am of the opinion that John's Gospel is second century anyway, certainly the one we possess at present. The story of Lazarus is, at least to me, obviously, that of Osiris. Scholars often argue that there is no connection between Lazarus and Osiris, for the two names are not the same. Actually, they probably are cognate. The Aramaic El-Asar is cognate with Lazarus. Lazarus was also a name associated with Osiris by the Arabs, as were the people of the Lebanon.

It was not just John though. Luke has knowledge of Osiris as well. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke's Gospel is a retelling of the story of Setme Khamwas.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V...hamuas&f=false

[gltw]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The story of Osiris was transmitted to the Greeks by the Egyptians before Plutarch in the 2nd century AD. It is almost certain that Plutarch's sources were those he obtained from the Platonists. Plus, I am of the opinion that John's Gospel is second century anyway, certainly the one we possess at present. The story of Lazarus is, at least to me, obviously, that of Osiris. Scholars often argue that there is no connection between Lazarus and Osiris, for the two names are not the same. Actually, they probably are cognate. The Aramaic El-Asar is cognate with Lazarus. Lazarus was also a name associated with Osiris by the Arabs, as were the people of the Lebanon.

It was not just John though. Luke has knowledge of Osiris as well. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke's Gospel is a retelling of the story of Setme Khamwas.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V...hamuas&f=false

There are no historical records of Osiris until the second century AD. Therefore all ancient historians, that I know of, conclude it is a 2nd century AD invention.

John's Gospel was probably written around 70AD-100AD after the destruction of the temple and after Peter's martyrdom (66AD). There are papyrus fragments of John's Gospel which are dated around 135AD discovered by John Rylands in Egypt, proving that is was well before 135AD it was written due to the time required for circulation.

I think the universal acceptance among scholars that Osiris is not connected to the Gospels and that the story of Osiris did not exist until hundreds of years after they were written shows the lack of evidence stating otherwise.

I understand where you are coming from as I have read of people who truly believe the influence of paganism was huge on the NT but none ever give substantial evidence backed by historical findings and scholarly research.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gltw)
There are no historical records of Osiris until the second century AD. Therefore all ancient historians, that I know of, conclude it is a 2nd century AD invention.

John's Gospel was probably written around 70AD-100AD after the destruction of the temple and after Peter's martyrdom (66AD). There are papyrus fragments of John's Gospel which are dated around 135AD discovered by John Rylands in Egypt, proving that is was well before 135AD it was written due to the time required for circulation.

I think the universal acceptance among scholars that Osiris is not connected to the Gospels and that the story of Osiris did not exist until hundreds of years after they were written shows the lack of evidence stating otherwise.

I understand where you are coming from as I have read of people who truly believe the influence of paganism was huge on the NT but none ever give substantial evidence backed by historical findings and scholarly research.

That's absolute rubbish. Osiris is mentioned in the Pyramid texts, the temple texts at Dendera and in the Egyptian afterlife and ritual texts, many of them predating the Roman period. In fact, Herodotus mentions the passion of Osiris. Festivals dedicated to Osiris were recorded in Alexandrian texts dating from 30BC. Plus, Plutarch, who writes about the Osiris myth, is not lying when he writes the Egyptian's celebrated the risen Osiris. Lactantius confirms it, and so do the ancient texts.

You should read this book:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q...ed=0CDQQ6AEwAA

[gltw]

(Original post by Martyn*)
That's absolute rubbish. Osiris is mentioned in the Pyramid texts, the temple texts at Dendera and in the Egyptian afterlife and ritual texts, many of them predating the Roman period. In fact, Herodotus mentions the passion of Osiris. Festivals dedicated to Osiris were recorded in Alexandrian texts dating from 30BC. Plus, Plutarch, who writes about the Osiris myth, is not lying when he writes the Egyptian's celebrated the risen Osiris. Lactantius confirms it, and so do the ancient texts.

You should read this book:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q...ed=0CDQQ6AEwAA

Bojana Mojsov is not even an accredited ancient historian. Like I said modern authors use old arguments refuted hundreds of years ago because they fail to lookup the history of the subject. There are no parallels between the story of Osiris and Lazarus. Osiris was a god, Lazarus is not.

You ignored my point about John's gospel therefore I assume you accept that is was written between 70AD-100AD. Therefore even if Osiris was earlier than 2nd century AD, John would not have known about it. The idea of the Jews secretly maintaining the cult of Osiris is far-fetched and has no historical evidence even though the Israelites were polytheistic from time to time.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by gltw)
Bojana Mojsov is not even an accredited ancient historian. Like I said modern authors use old arguments refuted hundreds of years ago because they fail to lookup the history of the subject. There are no parallels between the story of Osiris and Lazarus. Osiris was a god, Lazarus is not.

You ignored my point about John's gospel therefore I assume you accept that is was written between 70AD-100AD. Therefore even if Osiris was earlier than 2nd century AD, John would not have known about it. The idea of the Jews secretly maintaining the cult of Osiris is far-fetched and has no historical evidence even though the Israelites were polytheistic from time to time.

She's an egyptologist. I ignored your point about John because I do not accept the dating of the Gospels prefered by evangelical scholars and Bible historians.

[Okashira]

Again, this just shows that different beliefs have similarities. I could take a religion from India that resembles something from Egpyt. Would I then say that those two beliefs are connected in that one came from the other? All you can say is that they're similar. Many gods, people, etc died and was resurrected in some form. All that proves is they are similar.

Yet there are many difference as well. So many differences between Osiris and Jesus, you can't possibly say one came from the other. For one, Jesus died for humanity. Who did Osiris die for? Jesus' death was planned well before His birth. Was Osiris' death planned? Jesus said about His death and resurrection, that it would be the sign of Jonah. It will be far better to say the belief around Jesus arose from the story of Jonah, than to say it arose from Osiris.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Okashira)
Again, this just shows that different beliefs have similarities. I could take a religion from India that resembles something from Egpyt. Would I then say that those two beliefs are connected in that one came from the other? All you can say is that they're similar. Many gods, people, etc died and was resurrected in some form. All that proves is they are similar.

Yet there are many difference as well. So many differences between Osiris and Jesus, you can't possibly say one came from the other. For one, Jesus died for humanity. Who did Osiris die for? Jesus' death was planned well before His birth. Was Osiris' death planned? Jesus said about His death and resurrection, that it would be the sign of Jonah. It will be far better to say the belief around Jesus arose from the story of Jonah, than to say it arose from Osiris.

Then you misunderstand the process of religious syncretism. It is well known that the Vedic culture made in-roads into Persian culture and that there are some links with the Bactrians and the people of Thebes and Heliopolis in Egypt. Similar myths often have a common source.

There are differences to Jesus and Osiris, but you have to remember that Jesus was a sythesis of many different deities, including Mithras. Jesus died because he was the son of Man and because he had to attone for sins. In Egypt, Horus made the self-sacrifice so that he could defeat the serpent that brought darkness and sin into the world. The burden of mortality is suffering and death and both Jesus and Horus suffered and died. The sign of Jonah is that the son of Man would be in the earth for three days and three nights. This is the amount of time Horus (Horus the Elder) was in Amenta (underworld) before the resurrection; the resurection coinciding with a great catalcysm, thus Jonah representing Aquarius the harbinger of the Flood in the zodiac. The three days and nights signify the time period the sun appears to dwell in the underworld, three days before Christmas day. Thus when Osiris is reborn as his son Horus (Horus the Younger) he is born on the 25th of December coinciding with the return of the light days, and his defeat against the serpent of darkness.

The story of Jonah is based upon the Zodiac teaching that Aquarius comes as Jesus (another name for John the Baptist), as the Big Fish or the Dipper. What is after Aquarius? Pisces. And in the constellations Pisces is shown with Cetus, which the equivalent of the evil serpent of darkness and sin.

Trace these signs back far enough we find their source in ancient Egypt where they are retold. The people of God suffer in the wilderness because of the evil serpent and they cry out for a saviour, the saviour comes in mortal guise and defeats the serpent ending sin and suffering, but it is not complete untill the the serpent is banished for ever. Thus the saviour must die once and for all as a mortal. Through this death the saviour is reborn and resurrected. He thus overcomes death and sin. He has defeated the serpent once and for all.

This was taught in Egypt for thousands of years and it was, I believe, transmitted to the Jews as part of their folklore.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Then you misunderstand the process of religious syncretism. It is well known that the Vedic culture made in-roads into Persian culture and that there are some links with the Bactrians and the people of Thebes and Heliopolis in Egypt. Similar myths often have a common source.

There are differences to Jesus and Osiris, but you have to remember that Jesus was a sythesis of many different deities, including Mithras. Jesus died because he was the son of Man and because he had to attone for sins. In Egypt, Horus made the self-sacrifice so that he could defeat the serpent that brought darkness and sin into the world. The burden of mortality is suffering and death and both Jesus and Horus suffered and died. The sign of Jonah is that the son of Man would be in the earth for three days and three nights. This is the amount of time Horus (Horus the Elder) was in Amenta (underworld) before the resurrection; the resurection coinciding with a great catalcysm, thus Jonah representing Aquarius the harbinger of the Flood in the zodiac. The three days and nights signify the time period the sun appears to dwell in the underworld, three days before Christmas day. Thus when Osiris is reborn as his son Horus (Horus the Younger) he is born on the 25th of December coinciding with the return of the light days, and his defeat against the serpent of darkness.

The story of Jonah is based upon the Zodiac teaching that Aquarius comes as Jesus (another name for John the Baptist), as the Big Fish or the Dipper. What is after Aquarius? Pisces. And in the constellations Pisces is shown with Cetus, which the equivalent of the evil serpent of darkness and sin.

Trace these signs back far enough we find their source in ancient Egypt where they are retold. The people of God suffer in the wilderness because of the evil serpent and they cry out for a saviour, the saviour comes in mortal guise and defeats the serpent ending sin and suffering, but it is not complete untill the the serpent is banished for ever. Thus the saviour must die once and for all as a mortal. Through this death the saviour is reborn and resurrected. He thus overcomes death and sin. He has defeated the serpent once and for all.

This was taught in Egypt for thousands of years and it was, I believe, transmitted to the Jews as part of their folklore.

I have another hypothesis. You see according to the Bible, Israel came out of Egypt. With that in mind, it's possible for them to have come across egyptian teachings of their gods, and it could have blurred into Israel's beliefs about God. Or that some things could have been adopted into Israel's beliefs as a result from trading with other nations. Yet my hypothesis is if it's true that we were created and there was a history around it, then every culture has a piece of truth within every religion.

Take the idea of the serpent for instance. If it is true that a literal serpent played a hand in corruption entering the world, every culture will have a story dealing with fighting serpents to redeem the world. If for instance the God of the Bible is literally true, and one of His sayings is "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins", then it's easy to see why all human culture have belief that sacrifice is the only way to please the gods. That something has to die in order for us to live. Now the key as to why there are so many different beliefs, is simply because of the spreading of the human race, the introduction of different languages. The truth was muddled, or even lost altogether as time went on.

With all that said, when it comes to Jesus specifically, it deals with Jesus the literal person. The NT speaks on His literal life. The things He said and done. We have evidence that supports some of the things that are written about Him to let us know the NT was written as a historical document. We know that John the Baptist existed, that Caiaphas was a historical high priest, and that Pilate was governor of Judea. We have evidence of the geological features mentioned in the NT, such as the Pool of Siloam. If all these people and places existed, and we first heard of them from the NT accounts, then we can conclude that Jesus to existed. That He lived and died because of what He preached and did. Also, as I argue here...http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...=#post38823972 , this could be evidence that He really did rise again.

So it's not a matter of saying Jesus might have taken some elements away from other religious characters, but Jesus Himself is a real person. The things recorded of Him were written as historical fact. (By the way, and I just want to get this out there, no where in the Bible did it say Jesus was born on December 25th. I would agree with you that man has probably added a lot of things onto Jesus, trying to cope their former religions and blend it into Christianity. In that sense, yes, there are things taken from other religions, and it was molded into beliefs concerning Jesus. I've heard that a lot of paintings of Jesus, was actually a re-painting from how many people thought Zeus looked like.)