Thursday, 30 July 2009

RE: 'Critique of Acharya's Sun Thesis' Part II

It’s been a while since I have posted a video on YouTube. I apologize, for I have been travelling, and researching slightly digressional materials that wouldn’t hold much of a place on my channel. However, I thought I’d announce my return with another refutation of Keithtruth’s ‘critique of Acharya’s sun thesis’. I am well aware that Keith has produced a refutation of my previous part; however I shan’t dwell on such things until the series is completed. If I were to go back and forth with Keith on one section, I doubt any progress would be made.

As I’m sure my audience is aware, Keith has recently requested donations in an attempt to create a new film. I have no problem with someone acquiring financial support for something that is to be beneficial to others. The problem arises when one is asking for financial support to, in essence, amplify the feelings of denial in a chosen religious sect, in order to create a false sense of comfort, security, and purpose. I bid all to investigate Keith’s claims intrinsically, as I would be very apprehensive in donating to someone who has, undoubtedly, shown themselves to be a pathological liar, as will be demonstrated further in this video.

Before we get started, I ask all to assume that Keith is merely ignorant on the subject, as opposed to a deceiver; from there you can ascertain your own conclusions. Please prevent the problem of bias from clouding your vision.

Keith remarks in his article:

‘In Zeitgeist's transcript the earliest sources they cite, in support of this astrological death/resurrection of the sun claim, are Gerald Massey (1828-1907), James Frazer (1854-1941), James Bonwick (1817-1906), and Manly P. Hall’

He continues:

‘Gerald Massey was an Egypotoligist who didn't cite his sources regarding these issues properly. I read the citation and was not impressed. To use him as an "early" source for objective information is not conducive to the viewer.’

Unfortunately, Keith appears to be ignorant of the works of Massey. Massey has been demonstrated to have cited his sources correctly, using primary source data such as the Book of the Dead (which was then called the Ritual) and the Pyramid Texts. He is also known to have studied the works of the most prominent Egyptologists of his day, such as Wallis Budge, Champollion, Sir Renouf among others. His work was also peer reviewed by those of extreme competence, as he relates in his book ‘Natural Genesis’:

‘The German Egyptologist, Herr Pietschmann…reviewed the "Book of the Beginnings"... The writer has taken the precaution all through of getting his fundamental facts in Egyptology verified by one of the foremost of living authorities, Dr. Samuel Birch, to whom he returns his heartiest acknowledgements’(1)

Dr. Samuel Birch was more than impressive in this field of his day, an archaeologist, Egyptologist and keeper of the department of Oriental antiquities at the British Museum, it was he who compiled the first alphabetically ordered Hieroglyphic dictionary.

As well as pulling information from Egyptian texts (which he was able to read competently) he also found much of importance in the writings of early church fathers, Jewish and Gnostic writers as well as the Hindu Puranas among others. Indeed, some have criticized Massey’s ability to translate the Egyptian texts accurately, however those who make such contentions are wholly-ignorant of his works. Massey relates in stating:

‘…although I am able to read the hieroglyphics, nothing offered to you is based on my translation. I work too warily for that! The transcription and literal renderings of the hieroglyphic texts herein employed are by scholars of indisputable authority. There is no loophole of escape that way.’(2)

Keith continues in relating Massey to Blavatsky, some have even inferred that he was a Theosophist himself. Such inferences are fanciful, and slightly humorous indeed whence we read Massey stating:

‘I am opposed to all man-made mystery, and all kinds of false belief’(3)

And for those that need more proof of this assertion, Massey stated explicitly:

"I cannot join in the new masquerade and simulation of ancient mysteries manufactured in our time by Theosophists, Hermeneutists, pseudo-Esoterics, and Occultists of various orders, howsoever profound their pretensions. The very essence of all such mysteries as are got up from the refuse leavings of the past is pretence, imposition, and imposture. The only interest I take in the ancient mysteries is in ascertaining how they originated, in verifying their alleged phenomena, in knowing what they meant, on purpose to publish the knowledge as soon and as widely as possible."(4)

There we have it. Massey was certainly not a Theosophist. In fact, it was history that moulded such groups with these contentions, not such groups that moulded history. Although some Theosophist literature is speculative, and… somewhat bizarre at best, the information relayed regarding astrotheology is indeed, verifiable.

Keith continues in stating that the sun, in reality, does not halt movement for three days, and the whole prospect of this is theosophistic at heart. He uses Dr. Howard L. Cohen, Professor in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Florida to verify this contention. Dr. Cohen states:

‘…technically speaking, the solstice does not always occur on Dec. 21 (on the Gregorian Civil Calendar). For example, it often occurs on Dec. 22. Also, technically the Sun does not stop moving southerly for three day but reaches a southernmost position and immediately begins its journey north. However, I suppose it may appear to stop for several days if accurate measurements are not made (but why three?)’

Unfortunately, Dr. Cohen is ignorant when it comes to the solar mythos of various ancient religious sects, who understood the sun to die for three days at the solstice, only to be born again – or simply… born. This is verifiable, however, and is not simply a ‘made up theory to support a theosophist driven agenda’. In an article entitled ‘Forget Stonehenge: 5 questions put science back in summer solstice’ on ‘’, Mary Spiro states:
‘Does the sun “rest” for three days during the solstice? Astronomers and mystics have been asking this question since ancient times. If you observe the sun near the solstices, it certainly appears to set in the same spot every day. This article (which I will place a link to in the footnotes, and sidebar) by Asger Mollerup describes the use of sundials and specifically the gnomon (the part that stands up) to track the sun during a solstice, as well as during other astronomical events. Mollerup has posted some fascinating photos that show the summer sun setting on the horizon and appearing to rest in the exact location for three days straight. He also has photos and descriptions of astroarchaelogical sites throughout Southeast Asia (Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia); just in case you thought the Mayans and the Druids had the market cornered on sun worship.’(5)

Please bare in mind, that the sun may not necessarily ‘rest’ for three days, however, it certainly appears to do so, as attested to by Prond Robertson of the Meterologisk institute of Northern Norway;

‘According to my tables for this year (2004) at the 67 degrees latitude, the sun is not visible for three days from Dec 21st to Dec 25th…’(6)

Thus the sun is attested to ‘rest’ for three days at the Summer and Winter solstices.

Keith then attempts to refute the argument that the word Christ comes from the Egyptian word KRST. Unfortunately, Keith fails to understand the argument, and unfortunately, sets up a very easy straw man to knock down. I shall create a video on the Christ-KRST connection in the near future.

There is much more to be covered here, and no doubt Keith will sneer and jeer at the pieces I have missed out. I shall be assessing them shortly. However, I feel no need to rush such things, as soon as I have this series completed, I shall rebuke Keith’s counter arguments, which are indeed, extremely simplistic to do.

(1) Massey, NG, pviii
(2) Massey, GML, p1
(3) Massey, GML, p248
(4) vide Massey's response to the Blavatsky letter, Agnostic Journal, 1891
(5) (
(6) Pharmacratic Inquisition, 19:06

Monday, 22 June 2009

The Miracles of Jesus Christ; A Divine Revelation?

‘The common people like to be deceived, deceived let them be’
Greek Proverb

‘Miracles are only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds; men of sense have no occasion for them’
St. Chrysostom

One of the most awe-inspiring properties of Jesus Christ is his ability to perform miracles to prove his divinity. Such miracles are truly beautiful to imagine, and are a testament to the unquestionable deity-ship of such a personage.

Or are they? Indeed, the miracles of Jesus Christ are by no means exclusive, in fact; they can be found in multiplicity all over the ancient world, especially in the Egyptian mythos. In this short video, I shall briefly cover the main miraculous deeds committed by the Sun of Righteousness.

Firstly, Jesus was renowned for his breathe-taking powers of healing, no questions asked, Jesus was able to heal the sick, the blind, the dumb and the lepers, with the occasional raising of the dead. Such divinities flail however, once we notice that such concepts are in no way ‘revelatory’, nor are they particularly magnificent when compared to the miracles of previous God’s of antiquity.

The Greeks had their Gods of healing, in particular, Asculapius. Not only could this famed God of medicine heal the sick, but also raise the dead(1). The Christian Church Fathers were well aware of such Godlike properties those ‘dirty heathen Gods’ possessed, as Eusebius relates:

‘He sometimes appeared unto them in dreams and visions, and sometimes restored the sick to health’(2)

Although, such things are of no consequence to the Ecclesiastical Historian, as it is obvious that the Devil is the cause of such false saviours! He explains:

‘Who by this means (the Devil) did withdraw the minds of men from the knowledge of the true saviour’(3)

Justin Martyr in his apology addressing Hadrian also opined:

‘As to our Jesus curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were crippled from birth, this is little more than what you say of Asculapius’(4)

Asculapius was of much similarity to the Greco-Egyptian God Serapis, who was also fashioned with long curly brown hair, and a beard, no doubt a prototype for Christ’s eventual visual depiction. In fact, Hadrian (134CE?) even asserted Serapis to be the ‘peculiar God of the Christians’, even going as far as to say that worshippers of Serapis are Christians!

‘Those who worship Serapis there, are Christians, and those who call themselves Bishops of Christ, are devotees of Serapis’(5)

Moreover, Serapis and Asculapius were worshipped by the Therapeuts(6), a group which mysteriously vanished after Christianity’s inception(7). Historian and Philosopher Philo noted the Therapeuts(8), and in regard to Philo’s work, Eusebius declared:

‘Whether he (Philo) invented the designation (Therapeutae) and applied it to them, fitting a suitable name to their mode of life, or whether they were actually called this from the very start because the title Christian was not in general use, need not be discussed here.’(9)

Your ears are indeed intact; Eusebius declared the Therapeuts to be Christians! Relating to this, the Encyclopaedia Britannica elucidates:

‘Eusebius was so much struck by the likeness of the Therapeutae to the Christian monks of his own day as to claim that they were Christians…’

History dictates that Philo had no knowledge of Christianity, and such rites possessed by the Therapeuts predate Christian tradition by many, many years, it is indeed possible that such a group evolved into Christianity, merging their existing Godmen into a composite. This is all of extreme relevance, and has to be kept in mind when discussing how inter-related these groups were, as well as the properties of the deities.

Vespasian, born ten years after Christ, was also said to have performed fantastic miracles, including healing the blind with spit! Much like Jesus in Mark Ch. 8! Tacitus, recalling Vespasian wrote:

‘A man of mean condition, born at Alexandria, had lost his sight by a defluxion on his eyes. He presented himself before Vespasian, and falling prostrate on the ground, implored the emperor to administer a cure for his blindness. He came, he said by the admonition of Serapis, the God whom the superstition of the Egyptians holds in the highest veneration. The request was that the emperor with his spittle would condescend to moisten the poor man’s face and the balls of his eyes.’(11)

Tacitus apparently wrote this article around 98CE. However, the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark are unheard of at this time, as neither appears on the literary record until the second century! Thus it would be scientific, and honest to assert that the plagiarism is the onus of the Gospel writers.

Isis was also said to cure the blind and sick, as related by Diodorus Siculus in the firs century BCE;

‘She (Isis) even saves many of those for whom, from the stubbornness o their maladies, the doctors have despaired; and many, entirely deprived of sight or some other bodily function, are restored to their former healthy condition when they have recourse to this goddess’(12)

As has been demonstrated, Jesus curing the sick is nothing divine, nor is it revelatory, it’s fictional, as attested to by the numerous Gods and Goddesses before him performing the exact same feats.

It is said in the Gospels, that Jesus fed multitudes with seven loaves of bread(13), another act of brilliance, not so much however when we discover that Horus was associated with the exact same thing! In the Book of the Dead, Chapter 53b it states:

‘There are seven loaves in Heaven, at Heliopolis with Ra, and there are seven loaves upon earth with Seb, and there are seven loaves with Osiris’(14)

Chapter 52 relates that it was Horus who created these seven loaves:

‘Thou hast brought these seven loaves for me to live by, bringing the bread that Horus makes’(15)

Coffin Text sp. 772 also describes the ‘seven loaves with Horus and Seth’(16).
The seven loaves are in fact the seven lights of the sky, or the seven planets the ancients recognized, and named the days of the week after. Jesus, being the Sun, breaks up the seven loaves, or planets, into twelve baskets, or, the twelve signs of the zodiac, signalising the creation of the stars and placement of them thereof(17).
Indeed, Bread is often associated with Osiris, finding frequent references to the ‘bread of Osiris’(18), and ‘the Lord of Bread’(19), much like Jesus in the Gospel of John.

As for Jesus walking on water, Horus was said to do he same. In the Book of the Dead chapter 64, the speaker asserts:

‘I know the deep waters’ is my name… I travel on high, I tread upon the firmament’(20)

The firmament is Nu(21), who as Dr. Bunsen states: ‘Water is Nu, who is the father of the Gods’(22), Budge relates, in asserting Nu to be ‘the great primeval God of the watery abyss’(23). George Allen furthers this in opining the firmament in this scripture to be ‘watery’(24). Thus the speaker treads upon the waters, and as the speaker is the deceased, he is the Osiris, who is Horus. In Chapter 145-146, Horus states ‘I navigate the water, fording it’(25), again, we find reference to Horus walking on water. Indeed, walking on water is a solar myth, relating the suns reflection on the water itself, or the sun rising over the see, appearing aesthetically to be ‘walking on the water’.

Other miracles of Jesus can be found abundantly through ancient texts, predating the common era by centuries to millennia, however I shall leave the viewer to research such things for themselves. In particular I’d advise one to research Horus’ raising of Osiris, as the parallels of that to Jesus’ raising Lazarus are astounding. In closing, we must, judging from the evidence, conclude Jesus’ miracles to be fictional, based upon the numerous Gods before him committing the same acts of wonderment.

(1) Bell’s Pantheon, vol.i, p28
(2) Eusebius, LOC, lib 3, ch.iv
(3) Ibid
(4) Martyr, apol I, ch. Xxi
(5) Isaac, IRCE, p368
(6) Stewart, CGCG, p108
(7) Doane, BMPR, p419
(8) Philo, Yonge, p700
(9) Eusebius; ‘The History of the Church’, 2.12; Eusebius/Williamson, p50
(10) Enc Brit, XXVI, p793
(11) Tacitus: Hist, lib iv ch. Xxxi
(12) Diodorus/Murphy, p31
(13) Matthew 15:34, 36; 16:10
(14) Renouf, EBD, p107; Allen T, BD, p52; Budge, BD, p194
(15) Bunsen/Birch, EBD, p211; Ibid
(16) Faulkner, AECT II, p302
(17) Acharya S, CC, p197
(18) Faulkner, AECT, p182
(19) Faulkner, AECT, p257
(20) Renouf, EBD, p119; Faulkner, EBD, p106; Allen T, BD, p57
(21) Bunsen/Birch, EPUH, p169, p174, p219
(22) Ibid, p92
(23) Budge, GE, p52
(24) Allen T, BD, p57
(25) Bunsen/Birch, EBUH, p292

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Horus and the Twelve Disciples

Indeed it is true, that the ubiquitous number twelve concurrent in numerous ideologies persists to this day, and indeed, the true meaning of such an actuality has been suppressed and hidden within the mists of time. The number twelve in reality, is a reference to the twelve hours of the day, the twelve months of the year, or the twelve zodiacal signs. Such a number has been associated with such a conceptual image since antiquity; Exodus 39:9-14 reads:

‘…they made the breastplate… And they set in it four rows of stones… And the stones were according to the names of the Children of Israel, twelve… according to the twelve tribes’

Josephus comments upon this in his antiquities:

‘And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning.’(1)

Philo also made the same observation regarding Moses, earlier than Josephus:

‘Then the twelve stones on the breast which are not like one another in colour, and which are divided into four rows of three stones each, what else can they be emblems of, except the circle of the Zodiac?’(2)

Such an association is by no means new, as some would have you believe. In fact, church father Irenaeus had to publicly object the Gnostic notion that the apostles were merely symbolical for the aeons(3), which have been asserted to be the signs of the zodiac(4). Church father Clement of Alexandria earlier asserted that according to the Valentinian Gnostics:

‘The apostles replaced the signs of the zodiac, for as birth is governed by them, so rebirth is directed by the apostles’(5)

Such an early association is two pertinent to be ignored, and one must remember this as the discussion continues.

Like so many other Godmen, Horus too had twelve disciples, followers, accomplices or helpers. In the Pyramid and Coffin Texts we find frequent references to Horus and his Ennead or Enneads, which isn’t always connotative of nine Gods, on the contrary, such a term can be representative of twelve, as Horsley remarks:

‘The Ennead does not necessarily include nine Gods, as strange as that may seem. We have lists of the Gods that include up to twelve’(6)

However, such assertions may be regarded as vague and less direct, so instead of focusing on what a text may be asserting, lets take a look at a more explicit incident in which Horus is unquestionably portrayed as with twelve followers.

The Book of Amduat was compiled around the time of the New Kingdom, thus around a thousand years before Christianities inception. The book portrayed the Suns twelve hour journey through the night(7), only to return on the eastern horizon in the morning. Much like Hercules’ twelve labours, the book is comprised of the twelve hours of the night, with Amduat meaning the ‘netherworld’, or underworld.

In the seventh hour of the Book of Amduat, Horus is depicted as on his throne with 12 ‘star Gods’ in front of him(8), regarding this hour, Budge remarks:

‘On the right of the Boat of AFU-RA and facing it, are HORUS, and the twelve Gods of the hours, who protect the tombs of Osiris, and assist RA in his journey…’(9)

Thus the twelve followers of Horus are also protectors of Osiris, and ‘helpers’ of Ra, who aid him in his journey across the sky. Baedeker also made the same inference in regards to the seventh hour, in elucidating:

‘Horus, before whom are the twelve star-gods who conduct the Sun at night…’(10)

Indeed, Hornung even names this chapter ‘Horus enthroned before the twelve’. Furthering this theme of the Sun God being helped or aided by the twelve is in the Book of Caverns, which dates from around the 13th century BCE. Here we find the exact theme of the Sun God being towed in his boat by twelve other Gods, or twelve assistants, who each represent the twelve hours of the night, or the zodiac as previously outlined. In the Egyptian mythos is was said that at night, when the Sun vanished in the western horizon, the Sun God sailed in his boat to the east, to return in the morning; whence we find Ra, or Horus, in a boat.

Let us return to the book of Amduat, in which we find a further association of Horus with twelve others. In the tenth hour, Horus is depicted as leaning on his staff (which incidentally, will be brushed upon later when covering Horus’ epithet as ‘the Good Shepherd’) and leading the twelve deceased to their salvation.(11) Interestingly enough, Horus is said to lead these ‘lost souls’ to a ‘posthumous existence’(12) as Hornung puts it, which is not to dissimilar from those who believe in Jesus reaping eternal life(13). Thus Horus is the Saviour and Leader of twelve followers – unquestionably.

The Book of Gates is another pre-Christian source, much like the Book of Amduat, in that it portrays the Suns journey at night through twelve gates representing the night time hours, incidentally; the Sun God is frequently portrayed as with twelve others, such as in the third hour, of which Budge declares:

‘On the right hand of the boat of the God are twelve holy Gods of the Tuat, each in his shrine, with the doors open, and twelve Gods of the lakes of fire…’(14)

The fourth hour increases the Christian likeness, as Horus is depicted as leading twelve other figures. Osiris is also pictured doing the same, however he is presented with four other Gods too(15), much like Jesus, with his twelve disciples and four brothers.(16)

However, such motifs do not stop there, as in the fifth hour, Horus is depicted as the ‘steersman at the rudder’(17), signalling his leadership over his disciples, or followers, who are twelve in number. He addresses twelve men, whom ‘bear ladders’(18), thus it could be said that they help Horus. The seventh hour is also of the same theme, of which Budge states:

‘…In the centre is the boat of the Sun God being towed along, presumably by four Gods of the Tuat as before. Marching in front of those who tow the boat are twelve Gods with sceptres’(19)

It has been demonstrated abundantly that such an association of Horus with twelve others, of whom he leads was widely known and accepted in Egypt. It should be noted, that the twelve disciples of Jesus also appear to be older Gods of previous cultures that have been denoted to mere disciples as opposed to God men. This is just food for thought; however, I shall be posting videos on such a thing in the future.

In closing, if Horus is the Sun, and thus associated with the twelve hours of day, and/or night, of which are representations of the Zodiac, and had twelve followers or disciples, would it be so far fetched as to assert the same is legitimate for Jesus? We brush aside the idea of Horus’ historicity as lunacy; yet why don’t we do the same for Jesus, when both appear to share the same characteristics? It’s important to ask yourself such questions, with an honest, and open heart.

(1) Josephus/Winston, p75
(2) Philo/Duke, p99
(3) Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.21
(4) Legge, FRC, p152
(5) Excerpta ex Theodota, 1.25.2; Grant, AC, p62
(6) Horsley, HEGPH, p66
(7) Hornung, AEBA, p33
(8) Hornung, AEBA, p39, p48
(9) Budge, EHH, III, p85, p153
(10) Baedeker, EHT, p275
(11) Hornung, VK, p138, p144; Hornung, AEBA, p40, p51
(12) Hornung, AEBA, p40
(13) Jn 3:15; Tim 1:16
(14) Budge, GE, I, p182; Hornung, AEBA, p59, p61, p68 (Hornung uses the Tomb of Ramses IV to illustrate this hour, whereas Budge uses the Tomb of Seti. Budge’s interpretation isn’t incorrect, he’s interpreting different versions; whence the differentiations)
(15) Budge, GE, I, p184; Hornung, AEBA, p60, p69
(16) Mt 13:55
(17) Armour, GMAE, p60
(18) Budge, GE, I, p118; Hornung, AEBA, p62, p60
(19) Budge, GE, I, p191-192

Friday, 5 June 2009

RE: Critique of Acharya's Sun Thesis Part I (response to Keithtruth)

Keithtruth has recently released an extensive critique of Acharya’s latest article, as well as an attempt to refute her thesis as a whole. Keith’s latest release is extensive, indeed; however the overall content, as expected, leaves a lot to be desired. Littered with falsehoods and double standards; Keith’s latest attempt has done more than I or anyone else could do to expose him as the inconsistent, uneducated, bigoted drone that he really is.
Firstly, although slightly tangential, I feel the need to address something I happened upon in his article entitled ‘Osama Abdullah: The Epitome of Muslim Apologetics’. In this article, Keith proclaims:
‘Osama claimed that "Joseph", who I documented as having been sexually bribed into Islam by Sami Zaatari, is me. He claimed that the specific Youtube user was me pretending to be someone else. My challenge to Osama is to produce convincing proof for his assertion and not just other assertions. If this liar can't show proof for his absurd accusation then he is nothing but a bald faced liar. I am not Joseph. So if you think I am show some documentation.’
Such a contention is fair for Keith to make, as such presumptuous remarks hold no place in intelligent discussion. However, the hypocrisy of Keith’s assertions is made plain to see whence we investigate Keith’s alternative YouTube account. On Keith’s profile page, he hilariously remarks:
He continues:
‘"keithtruth0" is NOT me. It is one of Acharya's sock accounts spamming all of my videos.’
Such statements beg the question; ‘do you have any evidence for this, Keith?’ One could assert that ‘If this liar can’t show proof of his absurd accusation, then he is nothing but a bald faced liar’. It is important to keep in mind things such as this when analysing Keith’s articles, as for those that dig deeper, a landmine of deceit, defamation and slander is lurking in the murky waters of desperation.
Keith opens his article comparing quotes from Theosophists to that of Acharya. Unfortunately such quotes are taken gravely out of context; but even to the rational mind, one can observe how unrelated and foolish such presupposed relations are. Keith quotes Acharya as disclosing:

"But the future is now and the manoeuvres are being unveiled. As far as Christianity's role in this new age Carpenter states: "Christianity therefore as I say must either now come frankly forward and acknowledge it's parentage from the great order of the past, seek to rehabilitate that and carry mankind one step forward in the path of evolution - or else it must perish, there is no alternative." Despite the vilification of the so-called New Age movement, the fact is that we are entering into a new age... The age referred to in the gospel tale is that of Pisces, and, through contrivance and duplicity, coercion and slaughter, the fish-god "Jesus," the Piscean Solar Avatar, has indeed been with us, but now it is the close of the age, and his time is over... As Hancock says, "We live today in an astrological no man's land at the end of the 'Age of Pisces,' on the threshold of the 'New Age' of Aquarius. Traditionally these times of transition between one age and the next have been regarded as ill-omened." Ill-omened verily as the ongoing destruction of the earth and the endless warfare over ideology will indeed produce the 'Armageddon" so long awaited and planned by those who cannot live for today but must look towards an afterlife. By realizing the cultural unity revealed behind the Christ conspiracy, however, humanity can pull together and prevent this fall, to create a better world."
This statement is poetic, and an uplifting ending to a perhaps solemn reality. However, Keith compares this to a quote from Annie Besant, former president of Theosophy.
"As the equinox reached the sign of Pisces... it was only natural that the early Christian church should add the symbol of the fish to its symbology... the equinox will reach the sign of Aquarius, and, coinciding the great Cycle of influence, we can indeed hope to put a complete end to all the influence of the past Cycle, with its tyranny, slavery, war and cruelty... This is one of the great transitional Epochs, and the karma before humanity as a whole, and to every group in particular, is to reform itself from slavery, female subjection, war and cruelty and establish a civilization based on humane-ness and interest in spiritual matters."
Although the likeness appears to be, somewhat, superimposed… the two texts disassociate themselves further when the appropriate context is provided for Annie’s remark. Annie, truly, asserts the following:
‘… with it’s tyranny, war, slavery and cruelty. No doubt the next Cycle will bring evils in its train of which we have no knowledge as yet, but they will not be the same ones, and it has been said that we have every reason to hope for a less miserable future than we have experienced in the past. We know that the Aquarian subject usually requires a goad to rouse him in activity, but material activity is not the characteristic of the Aquarian. It is not his interest, so we can expect to see out future civilisation and culture based on less active and strenuous sciences. Man will crave and attain more rest and leisure and some goad in the shape of something that needs leisure will soon appear to force the attainment of such a civilisation. So far leisure has not been a necessity to life, except for health and longevity, but as we change structurally other reasons will appear, until we do change the tenor of our civilisation and culture’(1)
The fact that Keith had to eliminate such a lengthy and important section of Annie’s passage indicates that the correlation isn’t as strong as he’d like us to believe. In fact, the differences are astounding, especially in regards to Annie’s overt views of astrological influence upon human behaviour. Anyone with any knowledge of Miss Murdock will realise that she holds no opinion on astrology’s influence upon human demeanour, and she never advocates such an ideology in her book. Once again, Keith has to resort to quote mining and disinformation to perpetuate his thesis.
Parallels are next drawn between Acharya’s book ‘The Christ Conspiracy’ and Blavatsky’s ‘Isis Unveiled’, especially in depicting the characters of Krishna and Buddha. Again, Keith’s arguments lack any serious substance, and are hugely reliant upon his presupposed thesis. I’ll list each parallel Keith documents, and then insert my interjection.
‘"Christna's mother was Devaki, or Devanagui, an immaculate virgin." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.537. Acharya S repeats: "Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.116’
Here is what Acharya asserts in context:
‘Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki (‘Divine One’) on December 25th’
Furthermore, Acharya cites Kersey Graves for this statement, so all associations with Blavatsky are nullified upon further investigation. Regardless of this; the source of the information is irrelevant, as long as such contentions can be verified with the relevant source data. It is not the purpose of this video to justify such claims; however I shall be posting videos regarding Krishna in the future. Indeed, this information was documented aeons before Blavatsky; as attested to by Christian authority Sir William Jones from the 18th century:
‘The Indian incarnate God Crishna, the Hindoos believe, had a virgin mother of the royal race, who was sought to be destroyed in his infancy about nine hundred years before Christ’(2)
These writings are by no means restricted through isolation, numerous erudite scholars have arrived at such conclusions; however, for the sake of time, let us move on.
Keith enlightens us with:
‘Blavatsky Teaches: -"...the second person of the Trimurti (Trinity)." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.537. Acharya S repeats: -"He was the second person of the trinity." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.117’
It seems weird that Keith would draw parallels through comparing the most generic of assertions; perhaps he’s struggling in compiling his argument. When stating facts which gleam so strongly of objectivity, similarity is destined to be drawn. However Sir William Jones, in his extensive ‘Asiatic Researches’ also affirms the likeness of the Hindoo trinity with the Christian:
‘Very respectable natives have assured me, that one or two missionaries have been absurd enough in their zeal for the conversation of the Gentiles, to urge that the Hindoos were even now almost Christians; because their Brahma, Vishnou and (Siva), were no other than the Christian Trinity’(3)
Drawing such likeness between two passages discussing the same thing is foolish, one must agree. However; the fact is objective; thus even if Acharya was using Blavatsky here – it would be of little relevance.
Keith continues:
‘Blavatsky teaches: -"Christna is persecuted by Kansa, Tyrant of Madura, but miraculously escapes. In the hope of destroying the child, the king has thousands of male innocents slaughtered." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.537. Acharya S repeats: -"He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.116.’
Both accounts aren’t even the same in rhetoric; as I continue to stress – Keith’s conclusion is presupposed. He was looking to draw parallels, thus such biases should in no way be taken seriously – Keith’s mind is made up. Even so, such things are agreed upon by numerous and respected authorities on the subject. Sir William Jones remarks:
‘His (Krishna’s) birth was concealed through fear of the reigning tyrant Kansas, who, at the time of his birth, ordered all new-born males to be slain, yet this wonderful babe was preserved’(4)
Furthermore, Doane relates that this story is the subject of an ‘immense sculpture’ in the cave temple of Elephanta, in which the children are represented as being slain(5). Thomas Maurice elucidates:
‘The event of Crishna’s birth, and the attempt to destroy him, took place by night, and therefore the shadowy mantle of darkness, upon which the figures of infants are engraved, darkness (at once congenial with his crime and the season of its perpetration), involves the tyrants bust; the strings of death heads marks the multitude of infants slain by his savage mandate; and every object in the sculpture illustrates the events of that Avatar’(6)
To wit; these stories are by no way exclusive to Theosophy or Blavatsky; they have permeated themselves throughout religious history; as can be demonstrated with primary source documents and the opinions of schooled authorities in the appropriate fields; if you had researched this topic – you’d know that, Keith. However, it seems you’d rather smear and defame the persons who criticise ideologies; it’s apparent that you’d prefer attacking people, as opposed to conceptual deities.
‘Blavatsky teaches: "Chistna... Produces miracles, cures the lame and blind... liberates the dead." Helena Blavatsky, ISIS UNVEILED. Vol. 2 p.538. Acharya S repeats: -"He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind." Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy p.116.’
Again, the rhetoric differentiates one from the other. If I were to ask two people the story of Jesus, I’m sure they’re answers would be comparable. These facts are objective and thus the results of questioning shall most likely acquiesce.
I don’t want to waste too much time on this, as there is much more to cover; however, I think I have made it self-evident, that Keith clearly hasn’t researched this topic in any detail, and his attempts at drawing comparisons, are superimposed, and rely upon deception by omission.
Keith proceeds to quote evangelical Christian Dr. Ben Witherington III:
"The attempt to explain the origins of the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the basis of the winter solstice and what happens on Dec. 22-25 would be laughable if Mr. Joseph wasn't serious. First of all, the Gospels are clear that Jesus was not in the tomb for three whole days, only parts of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Were there an attempt by the Evangelists to conform this to some astrological phenomena or pattern, this is inexplicable. Secondly, as I have said, there is no association in the NT of either the death or the resurrection of Jesus with the winter solstice or what happens then. The story of Jesus' birth, death and resurrection are not told in light of such thinking about the winter solstice at all. Indeed the notion of resurrection had long existed in Judaism before the time of Jesus (see e.g. Dan. 12.1-2), and was not concocted in light of astrology or any other nature religion. This is a key point-- nature religions are indeed grounded in the cycle of the seasons, and focus on fertility gods etc. This is very different from religions based on history and revelation or prophecy. But the syncretism of Mr. Joseph will not allow that there are different types of world religions, and differing origins for them as well."
Witherington’s biases are obvious, however; he himself appears utterly ignorant of solar mythology, to the extent that it seems pitiful me even addressing such matters. The fact that Jesus is not in the tomb for ‘three whole days’ is irrelevant, as it’s still over a three day span, coinciding with the Winter Solstice. This is followed by the age old straw man argument of the Winter Solstice never being mentioned in the Bible, which shall be addressed in subsequent parts of this series.
Even so, Joseph Campbell has presented an alternative theory, he explains:
‘The Moon remains the high symbol of the death and resurrection god. Even the Christian image of the resurrection has elements of this symbolism inherent in it: Christ spends three days in the tomb, just as the Moon is three days dark; and the dating of Easter is always made in relation to the full Moon’(7)
Witherington is correct however, in asserting that resurrection had long existed in Judaism prior to the time of Jesus. For, indeed it had done; attached strongly to astrology, or astrotheology. The parallels increase when we come to realise that such resurrections occurred after a three day period. Concerning this, Mettinger elaborates:
‘The idea of a three-days span of time between death and return, a triduum, seems to be at hand in Hosea 6:2 in a context where the imagery ultimately draws upon the Canaanite ideas of resurrection… Apart from Hosea 6:2 one should remember also Jonah 2:1… where Jonah is in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. I understand the belly of the fish as a metaphor for the Netherworld’(8)
It would seem absurd for such tales contained within Jonah and Hosea to be read as ‘history and revelation’ as Wiltherington would have to assert. As has been demonstrated, such 3 day periods are referred to as a ‘triduum’ by scholars.
Hosea 6:2 reads:
‘After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him’
The verb ‘to raise up’ in the Septuagint is ‘anistemi’, which is essentially the same as the noun used in the New Testament for resurrection; ‘anastasis’(9). Furthermore, as my future videos will demonstrate; God’s of the solar mythos prior to Christ possessed three day deaths… Is this nothing more than coincidence?
KeithTruth; the Little Liar of the Lord, attempting to shore up his faith at all costs; even if it means disobeying Christian values, and disassociating himself further from the friendly faithful. Such factual discrepancies can only be accounted for by deceit; by no other means could a person perpetuate such slander and disgrace.
(1) Besant, TM April 1925 – June 1925, p56-57
(2) Graves; WSCS, p86
(3) Asiatic Researches, vol I, p272
(4) Asiatic Researches, vol I, p278, p259
(5) Doane, BMPR, p167; Maurice, IA, vol I, p112, p113 and vol III, p45 and p95
(6) Doane, BMPR, p167; Maurice, IA, vol I, p112, p113
(7) Campbell, ML, p16
(8) Mettinger, RR, p214
(9) Murdock, CIE, p383

Thursday, 4 June 2009

The Magi and Star in the East: Pre-Christian and Astrotheological?

Vehemence is expected when presenting suppressed and widely unknown data, unfortunately, when attached to religious connotations; such vehement suppression is only destined to continue. This video series is an attempt to open the eyes of those indoctrinated into historical falsehood, and to empower the individual to research further in the long and winding quest for truth.

The Three Kings motif is ubiquitous throughout mythology, so it is no surprise to find Pre-Christian sources relating to this in the Egyptian Mythos. However, such stories are also elucidated upon within Buddhism and Hinduism, as has been demonstrated by numerous works(1). It is not the purpose of this video to illustrate them here, however; I shall briefly note upon these well documented parallels.

Firstly, I shall cover the ‘Star of Bethlehem’ and demonstrate how common a theme it was for the birth of a God man to be announced by Astrological phenomena. Matthew chapter two narrates:

‘When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying: ‘Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.’’

Matthew 2:9 continues:

‘The star which they saw in the east went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was’

The fact that the star ‘stood over where the young child was’ furthers the astrotheological motif of this narrative, as I shall demonstrate, Sirius essentially stands over the birth of the Sun at the Winter Solstice. In the Egyptian mythos, Osiris was also associated with Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, also known as the Dog Star, although such an appellation wasn’t of exclusivity, for Sothis (or Sirius) was also considered the star of Isis. James Frazer remarks upon the Egyptian’s high esteem for this object of adoration:

‘…the splendid star of Sirius, the brightest of all fixed stars, appeared at dawn in the east just before the sunrise about the time of the Summer Solstice, when the Nile begins to rise. The Egyptians called it Sothis, and regarded it as the Star of Isis…’(2)

Thus the rising of Sirius was associated with the inundation of the Nile, or the birth of the Nile about the time of the Summer Solstice. Osiris was also God of the Nile or the Nile itself, as indicated by CT Sp. 317:115:

‘I (Osiris) am the Nile-god, Lord of Waters, who brings vegetation…’(3)

Thus it could be said that a Star in the East heralded the birth of the Egyptian Messiah thousands of years before Christianity adopted such a concept. Regarding Sirius’ association with Horus, Egyptologist James Allen elucidates:

‘Sothis… The morning star, Sirius, seen by the Egyptians as a Goddess. In Egypt the star disappears below the horizon once a year for a period of some seventy days; it’s reappearance in midsummer marked the beginning of the annual inundation and the Egyptian year. The star’s rising was also seen as a harbinger of the sunrise and therefore associated with Horus in his solar aspect, occasionally specified as Horus in Sothis, Sothic Horus, or Sharp Horus.’(4)

Here we learn that Sirius was often deemed the ‘Morning Star’, an epithet also ascribed to Horus and Osiris; as can be observed in PT 519:1207a, in which ‘Horus of the Duat’ (or ‘Horus of the Netherworld’, which could also be referring to Osiris) is called the ‘Morning Star’(5). This alone is a parallel to Christianity in itself, as in Revelation 22:16, Jesus is presented as the ‘Morning Star’; or Sirius. Thus as asserted by Matthew Chapter 2, the star in the east truly was ‘his star’, in the same way such a star was related with Osiris and Horus.

Furthermore, PT 593:1636b dictates:

‘Horus the pointed has come forth from thee, in his name of ‘Horus who was in Sothis.’’(6)

‘Horus in Sothis’ refers to the Sun rising with Sirius. Yet again, we find a reference in Ancient Texts to a Saviour God’s birth being announced by a star in the east!

Lastly, the Egyptian Book of the Dead Chapter 65 depicts the deceased as Horus pleading:

‘May I rise up a babe (from between) the knees of Sothis, when they close together?’(7)

The word translated by Renouf meaning ‘rise up’, can also be translated as ‘live’(8). Moreover, in Chapter 42, Renouf identifies the babe as ‘the Rising Sun’ - whence the Babe-Horus asks to be born from Sothis. A further indication is given in Chapter 101, in which Horus is said to ‘reside in Sothis’(9) Thus Horus is born as the sun rises in conjunction with the star in the east.

Now we shall discuss the Magi, or Wise Men that were said to adorn Jesus at birth. Such a motif can be found in Buddhism, as related by ‘Oriental Religions’ p500 and Krishna as related by the ‘Catholic Encyclopaedia’(10). The Biblical account of this is as follows:

‘And when they were come into the house they saw the young child, with Mary his mother, and fell down and worshipped him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh.’(11)

However, Luke appears completely unaware of this, instead he informs us that shepherds came and worshipped the young child! They were keeping their flocks one night, when the Lord appeared before them and stated:

‘Behold, I bring you good tidings – for unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.’(12)

The Shepherds then proceed to Bethlehem, without the guidance of a star in the east. Despite this obvious Biblical discrepancy, I shall focus on the story depicted in Matthew, what it really means, and how it was depicted in Egypt.

The Magi represent the three stars in Orion’s belt, which in turn, align with Sirius, the brightest star in the sky. These three stars were known in antiquity as ‘the three kings’, although French philosopher Simone Weil asserted:

‘The Christians named the three stars of Orion the Magi’(13)

The rising of Orion to the Egyptians signified the end of the flooding of the Nile towards the Winter Solstice, as related by Egyptologist Dr. Mosjov:

‘Both Sirius and Orion were related to the Nile flood. The ascent of Sirius during the third week in June heralded the beginning of the Nile’s steady rise. By August in Upper Egypt, and September in the north, the river swelled to its full capacity. Then stars from the constellation of Orion emerged in the night sky after being invisible for seventy days. At this time, the river began to abate. By November, it was back in its bed’ (14)

Orion was also identified with Osiris, as evinced by PT 442:819c-822b:

“Look, he is come as Orion’ (they say). ‘Look, Osiris is come as Orion…’ The sky shall conceive you with Orion, the morning star shall give you birth with Orion. Live! Live, as the gods have commanded you live. With Orion in the eastern arm of the sky shall you go up, with Orion in the western arm of the sky shall you go down. Sothis, whose places are clean, is the third of you two: she is the one who will lead you…’(15)

Thus Osiris is Orion, who is a marker for the soul’s journey, as lead by Sirius. Dr Mosjov continues:

‘Sirius and Orion, Isis and Osiris, inseparable in heaven as on earth, heralded the inundation and the rebirth of life. Their appearance in the sky was a measure of time and a portent of great magnitude. In historic times, both occasions were always marked by celebrations’(16)

The three stars of Orion’s belt were named Mintaka, Aniltak and Anilam(17), and as illustrated, these three stars were said to be lead by Sothis as indicated earlier. Thus Sirius announces the birth of Osiris as the Nile at the summer solstice, and in winter the three kings, or Orion, follow, or point to Sirius at night before the annual birth of the sun.

Gerald Massey summarises:

‘The birthplace of the ‘coming one’ as it passed from sign to sign was indicated by the typical ‘star in the east’, and the star in the east will afford undeniable data for showing the mythical and celestial origin of the gospel history. When the divine child is born, the wise men or magi declare that they have seen his star in the east. The wise men are identified as three kings of other legends who are not to be derived from the canonical gospels… When the birthplace was in the sign of the Bull, the star in the east that arose to announce the birth of the babe was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings for the ‘three kings’ is still a name of the three stars in Orion’s belt; and in the hieroglyphs a three-looped string is a symbol of Sahu, i.e., the constellation of Orion. Orion was the star of the Three Kings which rose to show the time and place of birth in heaven some 6,000yrs ago, when the vernal equinox was in the sign of the bull…’(18)

That Orion was known as the Star of Horus is further evinced to by Plutarch, who relates; ‘the soul of Horus is called Orion.’(19) From Massey we also learn that the hieroglyph of Orion was a ‘three-looped string’, which is illustrated by Budge(20). This proves that the Egyptians were well aware of the three stars of Orion’s belt. It has also been suggested that the three pyramids of Giza are representative of the ‘three kings’. Regardless, it has been demonstrated abundantly that the Egyptians were well aware of this astrological phenomenon, and incorporated it into the mythos as a herald for the forthcoming saviour.

(1) See Amberly’s Analysis; Bunsen, AM; Oriental Religions etc

(2) Frazer, AAO, p34-35

(3) Faulkner, AECT, I, p241

(4) Allen J, AEPT, p441

(5) Anthes, ATTM, p187

(6) Mercer, PT, p251; Faulkner, AEPT, p244; Allen J, AEPT, p217

(7) Renouf, EBD, p128; Allen T, BD, p60

(8) Murdock, CIE, p202

(9) Renouf, EBD, p172; Allen T, BD, p83; Faulkner, EBD, p112


(11) Matthew, 2:2

(12) Luke 2:8

(13) Weil, NSW, p474

(14) Mosjov, ODAG, p6

(15) Allen J, AEPT, p107; Faulkner, AEPT, p147; Mercer, PT, p153; Griffiths, OOHC, p13

(16) Mosjov, ODAG, p7

(17) Gould, p37

(18) Massey, HJMC, p12-13

(19) Plutarch/Babbit, p53

(20) Budge, EHD, I, p638

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Isis (Meri?) - A Pre-Christian Virgin?

‘The miraculous birth of Jesus could be viewed as analogous to that of Horus, whom Isis conceived posthumously from Osiris, and Mary was closely connected with Isis by many other shared characteristics(1)’

Who are these the words of? Helena Blavatsky? Jordan Maxwell? Manly P Hall? No. These are the words of renowned Egyptologist Dr. Erik Hornung of the University of Basel. Much controversy has arisen due to the increasingly mainstream contention that Isis was in fact a virgin, some are mindlessly propagating the view that such a claim is historically erroneous!(2) Despite the clear lack of logic and rejection of scholarly consensus some possess on this issue, let us examine some of the evidence used by mainstream scholarship to come to such conclusions.

Firstly, it is important for us to examine where the epithet Meri comes from, what it means, and where it is appropriately used in Hieroglyphs. It is important to note, that such an appellation was in no way exclusive to Isis, in fact, as asserted by Dr. Denise Doxey: ‘Among the most common epithets found in the Middle Kingdom inscriptions are those introduced by a form of the verb mri, ‘love’(3). However, to have the audacity to assert that such an appellation was never possessed by Isis is close to laughable.

Meri simply means ‘beloved’, ‘desired’, ‘delight’, ‘lover’, or ‘loving’(4) etc, and thus one would expect such a term to be used frequently in Egyptian scripture, often in reference to government officials, priests and Deities themselves. However, one should pay close reference to the context of ‘divine love’ being used, as before the New Kingdom such love was never issued by a subordinate, moreover it was passed on to subordinates by those of higher power (such as the deities themselves)(5). During the New Kingdom however, divine love was reciprocal, such as a King being loved by his people, and the King loving his people; this lead to the increasingly frequent application of such an epithet to the Deities themselves(6) - Resulting in them being invoked through divine love, and thus being known as ‘Mery’, or ‘Meri’. Doxey remarks that ‘Mry, followed by the name of a God or a Goddess is the second most common form of epithet referring to Deities’(7). As stated previously, Kings often had the epithet of Mery applied to them, usually in combination with that of a God or Goddess’, such as ‘Auset-Meri’(8), and ‘Ast-Meri’(9), literally translating as Isis Meri. Thus the King (here the subordinate) is receiving divine love from Isis.

It has been established that those said to be ‘loved by Isis’ would carry such an epithet accordingly, which in turn would leave Isis frequently associated with Meri, thus forming such a rhetorical allegiance. A further demonstration of this is Isis being paired with her Sister-Goddess Nephthys as the ‘Merti’ or ‘Mertae’(9), showing a clear etymological intertwining. Egyptologist Dr. Alfred Weidemann, a professor of Oriental Languages at the University of Bonn states: ‘The Egyptian word Meri means, very generally, ‘the loving or the beloved’, and serves in this sense, as a title of Goddesses, and is as often used as a proper name…’(10) This is attested to by a spell in the Book of the Dead that invokes ‘The Goddess greatly beloved with red hair’(11). Other examples of Isis being ‘beloved’ or ‘Meri’ herself are in the ‘Isis Book’ (Metamorphoses, Book XI), in which is discussed an inscription from Thessalonica, Greece asserting that ‘Osiris is said to ‘make the beloved Isis rejoice…’(12). Also, by the time of Latin writer Lucius Apuleius, Isis was the ‘All-loving mother’(13), another name that would bestow the ‘Meri’ epithet onto her in Egyptian.

Regardless of this, the question is; would the Egyptian word ‘Mery’, have influenced the naming of the Christian successor, ‘Mary’? One should note that in the original Greek, the New Testament asserts Mary’s name to be, in actuality, Maria(14). Why then, was the name shortened to Mary? Could it be perhaps due to Isis being worshipped and assigned the name ‘Mery’ centuries into the Common Era? To brush something off as a ‘coincidence’ would be bordering on absurdity, as upon further study, it becomes apparent that Mary as a derivative of ‘Mery’, may very well be the case.

‘Mary’ is often asserted to come from the Hebrew’ Miriam’, meaning ‘rebellion’. However, surely such a title would be nothing less than a misnomer? Mary certainly was no ‘rebel’ by any means, if anything she was the opposite – completely subservient to the will of God. Surely the term ‘the beloved’ would make much more sense, especially as Mary was a subordinate of God’s, thus perfectly adequate in receiving ‘divine love’ from a higher power. The Catholic Encyclopaedia itself asserts: ‘it is possible that their sisters name Mary was also of Egyptian origin…’(15).

As is perpetually clear, there is much evidence for this contention, although such evidence is all too quickly shunted aside by those who do not wish to hear it. For the sake of time, and conciseness I shall move on from this and now assess whether Isis can be deemed a virgin.

I shall start with the Pashcal Chronicle, a Christian source, compiled in the 3rd cent. CE and finished around 6th century. Regarding this, Arthur Thompson states: ‘The Chronicle of Alexandria has preserved the traditions of the practice of exhibiting the sun on the supposed day of his birth as a new-born infant being held sacred in the mysteries of Egypt’, he then goes onto quote the Paschal Chronicle; ‘Up to the present time Egypt has held sacred the delivery of a virgin and the birth of her son, who is exposed in a cradle to the adoration of the people. King Ptolemy having asked the reason for this practice, the Egyptians told him that it was a mystery taught to their ancestors by a venerable prophet’(16). The original Greek is also provided from Thompson’s rendition – the word translated as virgin, is ‘parthenos’ thus verifying the rendition. The mention of Ptolemy is also of importance as it indicates that such a custom dates back to at least the time of the Ptolemies, that is; centuries prior to the Common Era. The custom being a ‘mystery’ also indicates that it wasn’t necessarily stressed to the masses; hence a less abundant record demonstrates such things

Furthermore, the solar hero being born in a manger, or crib, is further attested to by the Book of the Dead, in which reference is made to ‘the cradle of Osiris’, which Renouf identifies as ‘where Osiris renews his birth’(17), which, of course would be Harpocrates (Horus the child). A ‘birth stool of Osiris’ is also mentioned at Coffin Text Sp286(18).

Next we turn to the Egyptian Book of the Dead, in which the deceased identifies himself as Horus in chapter 66 and states ‘I know that I have been conceived by Sechit and that I am born of Neith’(19). Sekhet is another form of the dawn Goddess(20) who throughout mythology is dubbed inviolable, and thus a perpetual virgin; giving birth to the Sun every morning. Neith being presented as the mother of Horus gives a further indication of a virgin birth, or birth through parthenogenesis, as Neith’s tale is an example of ‘female parthenogenetic cosmogenesis’(21). Even the most mainstream of sources asserts Neith’s virginity, an astonishing admission; declaring her to be the ‘Great Virgin’(22). In Egyptian Neith is also transliterated as Nut or Mut, mother of Osiris and Horus the Elder(23). As per James Allen, Nut was the Sky Goddess, who gave birth to the Sun at dawn ‘between her thighs’, after the night-time in which the sun gestates in her womb(24). As we have previously noted, the dawn Goddess motif constitutes a virgin birth, Nut’s association with inviolability is furthered by Dr. Schmidt, who also relates Nut to the constellation of Virgo which shall be brushed upon later(25).

Another important Goddess to keep in mind is Mut, who is seemingly associated with Neith, especially in regard to their attributes. Mut was regarded as the ‘Mother Goddess of all Egypt’, which would make sense, as her name literally translates as ‘Mother’ (which is in no way limited to Mut alone). Mut was represented by a vulture, which is also a symbol of parthenogenesis(26). Church father Origen also discusses such symbolism(27), which may have constituted part of the mysteries. Budge also relates that Mut possessed the power of parthenogenesis, like Neith(28), or to wit: virgin birth.

Dr. Cornelius P. Tiele, a professor of the History of Religions at the University of Leiden also remarks upon the chastity of Neith, ‘…Neith is distinguished… by being a virgin Goddess. This is expressed in the words inscribed on her temple, ‘My garment no one has lifted up’, which is immediately followed by ‘the fruit that I have borne is the Sun’, she is thus the virgin mother of the Sun’(29). Neith is a former version of Isis. As Isis worship grew, the two became interchangeable until Isis worship usurped that of Neith. The two Goddesses were even combined as Isis-Neith, or Neith-Isis(30), in ‘Egypt’s Place in Universal History’ Drs. Bunsen and Birch make the connection as well, with a chapter entitled ‘Isis as Neith’(31). Bonwick also attests to this in relating ‘She (Isis) is seen to assume the role of Neith’(32).

The Goddess Neith was adorned in Sais, where she had a temple in her dedication. In regards to this, Plutarch wrote ‘In Sais the statue of Athena, whom they believe to be Isis, bore the mysterious inscription: ‘I am all that has been, and is, and shall be, and my robe no mortal has yet uncovered’(33) the inscription then ends with ‘the fruit I have produced is the Sun’. This is important, as here we gather that Neith is Isis, is Athena, as also asserted by 5th century Greek Neoplatonist Proclus(34). Dr. Robert Turcan, a professor of Roman history at the Sorbonne also relates ‘Isis-Neith of Sais was an armed Goddess likened to Pallas (Athena)’(35). However, does no one lifting Neith’s robe really constitute virginity? Emmette Coleman elucidates, ‘The point is this: Does this expression, ‘lifting the garment’… of Neith refer to her perpetual virginity or to her inscrutability? There is no shadow of a doubt that it refers to the former, and I am confident that every Egyptologist in the world will so decide.’(36) Thus we find that there is a general scholarly consensus regarding Neith’s virginal status, and as Neith is synonymous with Isis, Isis must too be a virgin, as noted. Dr. John D. Ray, a professor of Egyptology at Cambridge comments, ‘In Sais in the Delta… there was a virgin Goddess who gave birth to the Sun at the beginning of time by some form of parthenogenesis’(37).

Neith being associated with Athena is also indicative. Athena’s virginity was so highly esteemed that the name of her temple in Athens was ‘parthenos’. The similarities strengthen upon reading ‘The nature of Gods III’ by Cicero which was written in the first century BCE. In this pre-Christian source, Athena is stated to be mother of Apollo, or, mother of the Sun God(38). The parallels don’t stop there, as Athena was considered to be a sea Deity(39), which would in turn, reward her the epithet of ‘Mare’ in Latin.

Regarding the dawn Goddess, it is perhaps important to also point out that numerous scholars have equated Isis and Neith with the sky, and thus the Dawn. Budge declares that Isis and Neith are ‘names of the sky, especially at sunrise and sunset’(40) He also remarks ‘As a nature Goddess she (Isis) is seen standing in the boat of the Sun, and she was probably the deity of the dawn’(41). Lockyer, concurs ‘Isis represents the dawn’(42).

Now I’m sure you’ve all heard the myth of Isis impregnating herself with the severed phallus of Osiris as related by Plutarch and Diodorus Sicilus. However, such depictions are absent from Egyptian texts(43); such a myth is obviously a later development. Regardless of this myths purported prevalence, it is important to remember that we’re not dealing with real people, they’re myths, and thus are able to maintain a perpetual virginity, as related previously. Even so, in an alternative version of this myth, Isis is unable to find Osiris’ phallus, and is thus required to give birth through parthenogenesis(44).

The word for ‘virgin’ in Egyptian (in particular) is hwn’t(45), and as related by the Theological Dictionary; in a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti, Isis declares ‘I am the Great Virgin’(46).

In closing, allow me to demonstrate Isis’ association with the constellation of Virgo since the first century C.E. Unfortunately, we have lost all works written by astronomer, and librarian of Alexandria, Eratosthenes. However, in the first century a work entitled ‘Placing among the Stars’ was attributed to him, which is generally considered to be written by a ‘Pseudo-Eratosthenes’. In Chapter 9, under the heading ‘Parthenos’, we find a discussion regarding the constellation of virgo, who, funnily enough, is related to Isis(47).

Much more information can be discovered in regards to this subject, and I would advise all interested to purchase ‘Christ in Egypt’ by D.M.Murdock, for a thorough, comprehensive and easy understand reference work regarding such topics. Hopefully in the future, those who condemn such historical actualities will study the topic in more detail. As should come overwhelmingly blatant, those who dispute such similarities are unsure of the Egyptian mythos itself, let alone the subtleties of the Deities. I urge all to investigate, and I urge all to leave preconceived notions aside, to truly appreciate where our beliefs of today come from.

(1) Hornung, SLE, p75

(2) See ‘debunking Zeitgeist’, or ‘A Scholarly Response to Zeigeist’, arguably, self proclaiming something to be ‘scholarly’ brings such ‘works’ into question. Such contentions will be demonstrated to be bogus in this video series.

(3) Doxey, ENEMK, p131

(4) See Allen J, AEPT, p97, 170; Faulkner, CDME, p111; Budge, EHRB, p429; Budge, EHD I, 310

(5) Doxey, ENEMK, p131, 132, 136

(6) Doxey, ENEMK, p132

(7) Doxey ENEMK, p132

(8) Budge, Mummy (1994), 102ff; Brugsch, EUP, xxv.

(9) Renouf, EBD, p113

(10) Proceedings for the Society of Biblical Archaeology XI, p272

(11) Budge, BD, p430; Faulkner, EBD, p120

(12) Griffiths, IB, p350

(13) Witt, IAW, p130ff, 133

(14) Murdock, CIE, p135

(15) CE XV, p464a

(16) Thompson, MOD, p481

(17) Renouf, EBD, p131-132; Faulkner, EBD, p108; Budge, BD, p235

(18) Faulkner, AECT I, p214

(19) Renouf, EBD, p128; Bunsen/Birch, EBD, p210; Budge, BD, p228

(20) Lockyer, DA, p31

(21) van Binsbergen, ST, p35


(23) Morris, NW, p88-92

(24) Allen J, AEPT, p9

(25) Schmidt, BJUTBC, p52-53

(26) West, TAKE, p70

(27) Origen/Chadwick, CC, p36

(28) Budge, EHD I, p295

(29) Tiele, CHEMR, p204

(30) Temporini, ANR, p950; Zitman, E:IH, p192

(31) Bunsen/Birch, EPUH, p418-419

(32) Bonwick, EBMT, p113

(33) Plutarch/Babbit, p25

(34) Diehl, I, p97

(35) Turcan, CRE, p90

(36) Miscellaneous Notes and Queries, X, p66

(37) Ray, RO:LAE, p63

(38) Cicero/Brooks, p183-184

(39) Raphals, NW, p217

(40) Budge, AGFSER, p2

(41) Budge, EBD, cxiv

(42) Lockyer, DA, p29, p31

(43) Assman, DSAE, p25

(44) Curl, ER, p15

(45) Botterweck, TD, p338

(46) Botterweck, TD, p338-339

(47) Condos, SMGR, p205