• September 22, 2023
Isis as the Great Virgin in the Temple of Seti I


This article is the second in a series that includes my essay, “HORUS IS A SUN GOD!!!” Here I provide the ancient testimony and primary sources for the contention that Isis, the mother of the Egyptian god Horus, was considered and deemed a virgin long before Jesus was a twinkle in his Father’s eye.

Firstly, it should be noted that the matter of pre-Christian and non-Christian virgin mothers is not only well established, but it also has its own field of academic studies relating to what is called the “parthenos” in Greek. Indeed, numerous goddesses and other figures—including gods such as Zeus, of all characters—were deemed “parthenos” or virginal, despite whether or not they gave birth once, twice or an infinite amount of times. Included in these virgin mothers are several in the ancient Indian text the Mahabharata. (See the ZEITGEIST Sourcebook for more on that subject.) The virgin birth itself is called “parthenogenesis” within academia.

In consideration of these facts, it would be astounding for one of the most popular goddesses of the Roman Empire and all time not to be classified in this parthenos category. As it turns out, we would be completely wrong and utterly unscholarly to assert that Isis was not a virgin, as so many have been doing around the internet and elsewhere.

The fact of Isis’s perpetual virginity is demonstrated in the ZG Sourcebook, where the information is carefully cited. It is repeated here for the reader’s ease of reference.


The virginity of Horus’s mother, Isis, has been disputed, because in one myth she is portrayed as impregnating herself with Osiris’s severed phallus. In depictions of Isis’s impregnation, the goddess conceives Horus “while she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the corpse of her dead husband.”  In an image from the tomb of Ramesses VI, Horus is born out of Osiris’s corpse without Isis even being in the picture. In another tradition, Horus is conceived when the water of the Nile—identified as Osiris—overflows the river’s banks, which are equated with Isis. The “phallus” in this latter case is the “sharp star Sothis” or Sirius, the rising of which signaled the Nile flood.  Hence, in discussing these myths we are not dealing with “real people” who have body parts.

isis flutters as a bird above osiris conceiving horus
‘Osiris…begetting a son by Isis, who hovers over him in the form of a hawk.’
(Budge, On the Future Life: Egyptian Religion, 80)

As is often the case with mythical figures, despite the way she is impregnated, Isis remained the “Great Virgin,” as she is called in a number of pre-Christian Egyptian writings. As stated by Egyptologist Dr. Reginald E. Witt, In Isis in the Ancient World:

The Egyptian goddess who was equally “the Great Virgin” (hwnt) and “Mother of the God” was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus].

One of the inscriptions that calls Isis the “Great Virgin” appears in the temple of Seti I at Abydos dating to the 13th century BCE. As stated by professor of Old Testament and Catholic Theology at the University of Bonn Dr. G. Johannes Botterweck, in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament:

..The Pyramid Texts speak of “the great virgin” (hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a…); she is anonymous, appears as the protectress of the king, and is explicitly called his mother once (809c). It is interesting that Isis is addresseed as hwn.t in a sarcophagus oracle that deals with her mysterious pregnancy. In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: “I am the great virgin.”

Isis is the
Isis is the “Great Virgin” on the Temple of Seti I

It should be noted that the king or pharaoh, whose mother is called “the great virgin,” is also the living Horus; hence, his great virgin mother would be Isis.

Also, in the temple of Neith and Isis at Sais was an ancient inscription that depicted the virgin birth of the sun:

The present and the future and the past, I am. My undergarment no one has uncovered. The fruit I brought forth, the sun came into being.

As Dr. Botterweck also writes:

In the Late Period [712-332 BCE] in particular, goddesses are frequently called “(beautiful) virgins,” especially Hathor, Isis, and Nephthys.

During the Greco-Roman period, Isis was equated with the constellation of Virgo, the Virgin, as I relate in Christ in Egypt, the identification of Isis with the Virgin is made in an ancient Greek text called The Katasterismoi, or Catasterismi, allegedly written by the astronomer Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE), who was for some 50 years the head librarian of the massive Library of Alexandria. Although the original of this text has been lost, an “epitome” credited to Eratosthenes in ancient times has been attributed by modern scholars to an anonymous “Pseudo-Eratosthenes” of the 1st to 2nd centuries AD/CE.

In this book, the title of which translates as “Placing Among the Stars,” appear discussions of the signs of the zodiac. IN his essay on the zodiacal sign of Virgo (ch. 9), under the heading of “Parthenos,” the author includes the goddess Isis, among others, such as Demeter, Atagartis and Tyche, as identified with and as the constellation of the Virgin. In Star Myths of the Greeks and Romans, Dr. Theony Condos translates the pertinent passage from the chapter “Virgo” by Pseud-Eratosthenes thus:

Hesiod in the Theogony says this figure is Dike, the daughter of Zeus [Dios] and Themis… Some say it is Demeter because of the sheaf of grain she holds, others say it is Isis, others Atagartis, others Tyche…

(For more information, including the original Greek, where the father-god Zeus is termed Dios, meaning the “Divine One” or “God,” see Christ in Egypt, 156ff.)

Also, there exists at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York an ancient Carnelian ring stone from the Imperial period (1st-2nd cents. AD/CE) that is an “adaptation” of a Greek artifact from the fourth century BCE. The ring stone possesses an image of the Greco-Egyptian hybrid god Serapis-Hades and Isis standing before him holding an “ear of wheat and the sistrum.” The Greek inscription reads:

The Lady Isis Immaculate

The phrase is translated as “The Lady Isis, Immaculate,” the latter word from the Greek verb agneuw, meaning “to be pure or chaste.”

In addition, according to early Church father Epiphanius (c. 310-403), the virgin mother of the god Aion—also considered to be Horus—brought him forth out of the manger each year. This account is verified earlier by Church father Hippolytus (c. 236), who, in discussing the various Pagan mysteries (Refutation of All Heresies, 8.45), raises the idea of a “virgin spirit” and remarks: “For she is the virgin who is with child and conceives and bears a son, who is not psychic, not bodily, but a blessed Aion of Aions.”

Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov concludes:

As the redemptive figured of the Egyptian god [Osiris] loomed large over the ancient world, Isis came to be worshipped as the Primordial Virgin and their child as the Savior of the World.

Bojana also says:

The cult of Isis and Horus-the-Child was especially popular. Hundreds of bronze figurines of Isis nursing her infant found in temples and households became models for the Christian figures of the Virgin and child. Steadily, the story of Osiris had spread beyond Egypt and arond the entire Mediterranean.

As we can see, despite her manner of impregnation Isis is clearly a virgin mother, considered as such beginning many centuries before the common era and continuing well into it.

For much more on this subject, see Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, pp. 120-197. See also this forum post with the image from the temple of Seti I showing the hieroglyphs calling Isis a “virgin.”

Isis is the Great VirginFurther Reading

Neith: Virgin Mother of the World
Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity


82 thoughts on “ISIS IS A VIRGIN MOTHER!!!

  1. About ‘virgin’ birth
    Found interesting material about [i]parthenogenesis[/i] in the Bible.
    During Ptolemy (309-246), the Old Testament is translated from Hebrew to Greek. This work is known as Septuagint.

    During the translation, the scribes made some mistakes and it seems the biggest one was with Isaiah 7:14 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [b] will call him Immanuel.”

    Well, in Hebrew there are two expressions for females: [i]almah[/i] and [i]bethula[/i]. Old testament uese ‘almah’ which a female with no children while ‘bethula’ means a virgin. The scribes translated [i]almah[/i] into ‘[i]parthenos[/i]’ which means a virgin.

    As Septuagint version spread and was translated, it seems highly possible that the virgin birth started as a mistake made in a translation.

    Of course, virgin birth is possible but not in humans. [i]Parthenogenesis[/i] is possible (among the others) with Komodo Dragons.

    1. You have to read the original Hebrew. Isaiah introduces his statement with “!Hineni!” which means “Behold, Look at this!” Meaning that this was indeed something way out of the ordinary, a great Miracle. The writer Isaiah was sawn in half for his statements. He was not stupid. He would never had said Behold, a girl shall conceive for birthing has been going on for millennia. What he was saying, is “Wow, Look! Look! A Virgin shall conceive and call His name Emmanuel, God with us.”
      Again, the writer Isaiah would never have said BEHOLD (Hineni!) if it was a normal occurrence. That’s like saying in Chinese culture, Number One Son, when there were no other children that followed in that family.
      I can tell you for a fact that Jesus is indeed who He said He is. Why? Because He lives in me. He changed my life in 1971 and I have never been the same. Me, and a billion other people. And that without force or without threat of having one’s head cut off if I didn’t believe in Him. He is so beautiful and a great lover! All others pale in comparison.

      1. Thanks. However, the passage in Isaiah evidently is past tense, not a “prophecy”:

        Jewish commentators point out that the verb harah (“be with child”) is in the perfect tense and should be rendered “she has conceived” or “is with child” — not “will conceive.”

        Secondly, what you feel about Jesus “being inside you” is not evidence of Jesus being a real person who lived 2,000 years ago. The numbers of people who believe in any given religion, sect or cult are likewise irrelevant. There are 1.5 billion Muslims – does that fact mean Islam is true?

        Millions of Hindus have experienced countless deities “inside them” – does that mean Krishna, Shiva, the elephant-headed god Ganesha and the monkey god Hanuman were all real and lived on Earth? The Egyptians felt their deities – are Osiris and Isis real?

        Calling Jesus a “great lover” makes him sound sexual – are you a man? And why do you need an invisible lover of any sort?

        Every devotee believes that his or her god or goddess is the one and only, and that “all others pale in comparison.” One’s belief is irrelevant in establishing what actually happened on planet Earth in the third dimension.

        The “Jesus Christ” of the New Testament remains a fictional compilation of characters, not a single historical individual. It does the previous cultures a great disservice to have their religious and mythological ideas taken and reworked as a fictional Jewish man.

        1. Empirical evidence and uninhibited truth e.g. objective information vs. beliefs, thoughts, and feeling e.g. subjective information. D.M. Murdock I appreciate your scholarship

        2. So now I understand so much more of the human mind.I guess I was correct in thinking that there can be no great intelligent being that formed everything . We came from the great dust of matter and nothing more or less.. All things are formed form itself, from nothing to become something. When we as a human race can know for a fact of this I will be much more satisfied in my thought of a truly higher power than us on this planet.

    2. saiah 7:14 reads, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel – which means, ‘God with us.'” Christians point to this “virgin birth” as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is “virgin” even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?

      The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is “almah,” and its inherent meaning is “young woman.” “Almah” can mean “virgin,” as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. “Almah” occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

      With all that said, even if the meaning “virgin” is ascribed to “almah” in Isaiah 7:14, does that make Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy about Jesus, as Matthew 1:23 claims? In the context of Isaiah chapter 7, the Aramites and Israelites were seeking to conquer Jerusalem, and King Ahaz was fearful. The Prophet Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and declares that Aram and Israel would not be successful in conquering Jerusalem (verses 7-9). The Lord offers Ahaz the opportunity to receive a sign (verse 10), but Ahaz refuses to put God to the test (verse 11). God responds by giving the sign Ahaz should look for, “the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son…but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.” In this prophecy, God is essentially saying that within a few years’ time, Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At first glace, Isaiah 7:14 has no connection with a promised virgin birth of the Messiah. However, the Apostle Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connects the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23) with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 should be understood as being a “double prophecy,” referring primarily to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer.

  2. Did you even read what she wrote? It would be obvious to anyone with half a brain that she’s researched this up the wazoo, fool.

    What the dates PROVE is that Isis was a VIRGIN MOTHER before Mary supposedly existed, and that the Bible is a copy.

    But you’re trying to use the “devil got their first” excuse for this ripoff? Or some supernatural “prophecy?” Occam’s Razor, idiot – Christians stole the virgin birth, period.

    Sorry, but YOU have no credibility. Better get back to the psych ward.

  3. Don’t mean to offend…
    don’t mean to offend, but it’s obvious you haven’t done your homework on any of this. Did you rush it, or take the time to research it, because none of this is credible of anything. The dates of the information make it much worse, and even more flawed. If anything, you’ve just proven the prophecies origin.

  4. No Primary Sources
    There are no primary sources referenced within the text, nor the book.

    Moreover, her references themselves do not refer to primary sources, directly or indirectly, to confirm Isis’ description as a “Virgin Mother”.

    There is now a well-established general consensus regarding the poor scholarship underlying the “Christ Conspiracy” book, from which this information is derived.

    1. Pretty much everything you’ve said here is false. I’ve provided primary sources RIGHT HERE, but you didn’t even read the article before you decided to make this series of falsehoods. 😡

      [quote]There is now a well-established general consensus regarding the poor scholarship underlying the “Christ Conspiracy” book, from which this information is derived.[/quote]
      FALSE. This information is NOT “derived” from my book The Christ Conspiracy ([url]http://truthbeknown.com/christ.htm[/url]) AT ALL. [b] It comes from PRIMARY SOURCES and the writings of EGYPTOLOGISTS [/b]as is spelled out in the article itself.

      Your “well-established consensus” apparently comes from other individuals with equally poor reading comprehension and can be dismissed as worthless.

    2. Primary Sources?
      So you believe that a female human being who had never had sexual intercourse with another male human being gave birth to the “son of god”?
      You believe that an entity called god sent his holy ghost and use magic to impregnate said human female some 2,000 years ago?

      Where are your primary sources for this?
      Who were the eyewitness(es) of this supposed event?

      Mythology is mythology no matter how many primary sources you sight for it.
      Mythology is mythology no matter how blindly you believe it to be otherwise.
      Blind and irrational believe cannot make it into a real historical event.

      1. Mythology is not blind and irrational believe . Its just reflection .
        Judaism/Christianity is not one of ancient (pagan) cultures ,in this religion people are people. Virgin Maryam is girl, and Jesus is a child.

  5. re: No Primary Sources
    [quote name=”jimbo74″]There are no primary sources referenced within the text, nor the book…[/quote]
    There are NO SOURCES WHATSOEVER for anything the Christianity offers as truth. Learn to learn from the facts. Do not close your eyes stomping your feet on the floor shouting: [i]You’re all liars. I know the truth![/i]

  6. primary source
    Not sure how much closer you can get to a primary source than an ancient inscription and picture on a wall. hwn.t wr.t is inscribed on the wall at seti’s temple. There is also a picture of a bird flying over the body as well at the temple(go to link below). Unless someone has a different interpretation for hwn.t wr.t or can tell me a different meaning for the picture (which is explaned at the site). I would call seti’s temple “material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied” or a primary source.

    http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf ([url]http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf[/url])

  7. Sure the idea of the virgin mother is from ancient
    Any knowledgeable religion historic will confirm that as a fact.

    As it looks – the life of Jesus to the point where he meets John the baptist are constructions based on rivaling religions. It was quite common to do that in order to win followers back in those days.

    You will find similar pagan sources regarding the Old testament as well. For instance the story of Noah – the story is also found in Gilgamesh – all similar apart from the fact that there were many gods who wanted to punish the humans by drowning them with a flood – but one of them saved a friend of his – the biblical Noah. The fact that there was a flood has been proven beyond doubt. It is also a fact that natural disasters often found their way into religion.. I mean – who else could be responsible for such vast destruction but a god?? Nowadays we know a tad better. 🙂

  8. That’s not a quick comment, it’s a long apologist tract. The supposed differences are irrelevant, except that they reflect the culture in which an archetypal myth is developed. What this information demonstrates is that Mary is quite likely [i]not [/i]a real person and that she is a mythical remake of Isis, among others.

    In addition, it is not at all “odd” to take a mythical figure or supernatural concept and turn it into a supposed “real person.” It happens all the time within mythology. It’s called “anthropomorphization” or “personification.” For thousands to hundreds of years, people believed that Osiris and Hercules were real people who walked the earth, having many sites where they supposedly set their feet. Ditto with the Elephant-headed god Ganesha, who was given adventures on planet Earth, and so on, etc., ad infinitum. Practically every culture has had its personified gods who supposedly were “real people.” Obviously, the creators of the Christ myth were [i]deliberately[/i] attempting to make it seem as if the story had taken place on Earth, for a variety of reasons that I discuss in my books, including hegemony. Since they are part of this effort, the opinions of the patristic scholars are biased and likewise irrelevant.

    The creators of any myth – called “mythographers” – take what they want from other concepts already in existence. If they are trying to create a mythical Jewish figure, these mythographers will pick and choose what qualities might fit into that worldview, etc. That’s how myths are made – again, nothing mysterious or baffling about it. The creation of syncretic myths – quite a well-known phenomenon – frequently takes place over a long period of time, decades to centuries. Again, nothing odd or incomprehensible here.

    If it is to be admitted that there were all manner of virgin mother goddesses in pre-Christian antiquity, then the story revolving around Jesus is hardly unique and certainly not believable as “history.” Of course, Isis is not the only virgin-mother goddess – thanks for admitting that fact. But focusing on her shows that there was already a highly prominent virgin mother of a savior son called “Mery” long before the Christian Mary was devised. In addition, it is a known fact that the ancient Egyptian Christians or Copts themselves associated Isis with Mary. It would be illogical and unscientific NOT to presume derivation of Mary’s various characteristics from Isis, since the Copts quite clearly DID derive some if not most Marian aspects from Isis. That fact does not mean that the creators of the Mary character were not influenced by other such figures in the Roman Empire and beyond. They surely were. Mary is a typical goddess figure ([url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/mary.html[/url]), associated with the moon and possessing many other mythical attributes. Her ultimate derivation is astrotheological, as part of a divine female archetype. It’s quite straightforward and easy to understand. There’s nothing mysterious or baffling about it.

    Moreover, these very important parallels that essentially prove this mythicist concept are certainly [i]not [/i]well known at all, since they are constantly denied. This article and the lengthy chapter in my book Christ in Egypt ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]) represent the most comprehensive collection of these important parallels to date. I know of nowhere else where these parallels are examined in such detail.

  9. Just wanted to make a quick comment on this.

    The parallels between Isis and Mary are well known (as are the parallels between Jesus and various pagan gods). However, there are two important points to make.

    The first is that the differences are arguably greater. Mary was, after all, believed to be a human being who lived at a relatively recent time. Isis, by contrast, was a goddess who lived in mythological time (either impossibly ancient or a sort of cyclical timeline that recurred wtih the years). The same can be said of Jesus and the various gods who are often claimed to parallel him.

    The second is that similarities don’t, in themselves, prove derivation. The author rightly points out that masses of ancient goddesses were regarded as virgins and as mothers. Well, if that’s the case, then why suppose that the story of Mary was derived from that of Isis? If these were such common ideas, why point to one particular manifestation of them as the source? Isn’t it more reasonable to suppose that these were different expressions of a common idea or tendency in ancient religion, rather than that one was straightforwardly derived from the other?

    This point is further borne out if you consider the evolution of mariology within Christianity. The New Testament presents Mary as a normal human being who was obedient to God (much like many other biblical characters). The only thing she has in common with Isis is being a virgin and a mother. It wasn’t until the third or fourth centuries that she was regarded as perpetually virgin and as having preserved her virginity in parturition; it wasn’t until the fifth century that she was officially “Theotokos” or “God-bearer”, and it’s around this time that we find Christians starting to pray to her.

    In other words, if the conception of the Virgin Mary that we’re familiar with from later Christianity was really derived from the myth of Isis, it was derived from it in a very odd way. The authors of the New Testament or their sources took the idea of a virgin mother, but they applied it to a human being, not a goddess at all. They ignored all the other aspects of the Isis myth. Then, centuries later, other Christians took the other elements of the Isis myth and applied them again to Mary, making her into a quasi-goddess.

    So if the theory that beliefs about Mary derived from beliefs about Isis is to hold water, we have to accept that it happened in stages over centuries. And this seems implausible to me. Proponents of this theory need to explain why it is that the “virgin mother” idea appears in the New Testament, but all of the devotion *to* that virgin mother doesn’t, and emerges much later and more gradually.

    This is especially so when there’s no actual evidence at all for the derivation, other than the parallels between the two sets of beliefs. But as the author herself points out, there’s nothing particularly unusual or striking about those parallels, which do not go notably beyond elements that were common to many or even most ancient religions.

    I’d therefore say that the theory that beliefs about Mary were derived from beliefs about Isis is not only unproven, but doesn’t really rest on any good evidence, and is intrinsically implausible when one looks at the history of marian devotion, including how Mary is actually presented in the New Testament. My view is that the beliefs about Mary, like most Christian beliefs, developed mainly through a logic internal to Christianity rather than being imported from outside. This is the view of most patristics scholars.

    1. so called mariology is not about origin of Mary (Jewish Maryam,who can’be a cult,but blessed mother of Jesus.)- its about origin of Madonna & a child in art ,idolatry and cult itself.
      Egypt-GeekRoman – Roman Catholic . Thats why Winter Solstice date is basic for Roman Catholic.

  10. Thanks for replying to my comment, although I think it’s somewhat harsh to call it “apologist”, since I’m not defending any religious view.

    I still think you’re glossing over the points I raised. Yes, gods get anthropomorphised. But in the case of Mary the process is reversed. As I said, in the New Testament Mary is not a goddess or particularly remarkable. Only later, as Christian veneration of Mary develops, are these features added. So it makes little sense to me to suppose that the New Testament portrait of Mary was derived from beliefs about non-Christian goddesses. If she’s just a copy of these goddesses, why isn’t she a goddess? Why isn’t there any indication of a Mary cult at all in the New Testament?

    This is why I don’t think you’re right to say that Mary is a straightforward derivation from other goddess figures. On that hypothesis, there’s nothing straightforward about it. Surely the simplest and most straightforward explanation is to say that the first Christians believed that Jesus’ mother was a virgin – a fairly normal belief about the mothers of remarkable people – and that traditions later developed about his mother that built upon this simple foundation, perhaps reflecting the development of Christian moral ideals and conceptions of women. No doubt common ideas of various goddesses played a role, at least by creating an environment in which such development was possible. The development of the cult of Mary was the result.

    I don’t see the explanatory value in attributing the development of mariology to the influence of just one particular goddess, since that theory doesn’t explain why mariology developed in the way it did. On that theory, I would expect to find mariology emerging fully formed right at the start. But that’s not what we find. You rightly say that the development of myths typically takes a long time. But the hypothesis you’re presenting is that the Christian mythology about Mary *didn’t* develop in this way – you’re saying that it was taken wholesale, *right from the start*, from the myth of Isis.

    I don’t see how the association of Mary with Isis by Coptic Christians proves anything, unless you suppose that the Gospels in which Mary features were written by Coptic Christians. Surely what this example shows is that there were similarities between Mary and Isis and that the Copts recognised these similarities and perhaps developed new ones. But that’s not evidence that the story of Mary was based upon the story of Isis in the first place. In China, Matteo Ricci saw parallels between Jesus and Confucius and presented Jesus as a sort of Confiucian teacher to the Chinese, as part of his evangelisation strategy. Many Chinese and, later, Korean readers of his books were convinced. But it doesn’t follow from that that the story of Jesus was originally based upon that of Confucius, only that there were certain parallels which later people found interesting and useful. Similarly, the fact that Coptic Christians later found parallels between Mary and Isis doesn’t prove that the former was originally based upon the latter. There’s nothing logical or scientific about assuming that just because the ancient Coptic Christians saw a link between two myths, one of those myths must have been based upon the other.

    In any case, I certainly don’t see how any of this indicates that Mary wasn’t a real person. Even if it were true that all the cultic stuff is derived from the cult of Isis, including the bare and basic original belief in her maternal virginity, that wouldn’t prove that she wasn’t a real person, only that the mythologising about her began at an early stage. I think further argumentation would be needed to prove that she didn’t exist at all.

    1. I don’t gloss over anything. I’ve written thousands of pages on the subject, with thousands of citations from primary sources to the most modern research.

      The fact will remain that the preponderance of evidence points to these Jewish, biblical figures as being as mythical as the Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods, et al., etc. I don’t engage in trying to prove non-existence; I thoroughly demonstrate pretty much every aspect of these characters’ stories to be part of ancient mythology. When the mythological layers are removed, there simply is no core to the onion.

      You are always welcome to study my writings to see the voluminous proofs of this contention. Feel free to do a search using the search box on this site, which brings up all my sites.


      1. JonathanCR “I still think you’re glossing over the points I raised.”

        Humm, not sure what makes you think she’s “glossing over the points” you raised when she addressed them directly.

        JonathanCR “it makes little sense to me to suppose that the New Testament portrait of Mary was derived from beliefs about non-Christian goddesses. If she’s just a copy of these goddesses, why isn’t she a goddess? Why isn’t there any indication of a Mary cult at all in the New Testament?”

        “most straightforward explanation is to say that the first Christians believed that Jesus’ mother was a virgin – a fairly normal belief about the mothers of remarkable people”

        You don’t really know much about this subject at all, do you. Thanks for inadvertently admitting that the virgin birth motif was common and therefore, not unique to Jesus. The cult of Isis was one of the most popular goddesses being worshipped all around the Mediterranean in the 1st century. Ever learn about syncretism?

        What credible evidence do you have that Mary actually existed? According to the scientific principle of ‘burden of proof,’ it is the responsibility of those who claim Mary, Jesus and other characters in the bible existed. Christians have failed miserably in that task for 2,000 years now.

        It is not our responsibility to prove non-existence; especially since the scientific principle of ‘proving a negative’ does not work in the case of attempting to disprove the historical existence of people who never existed in the first place. The best that can be found is an absence of evidence. And that’s precisely what we have.

        Unless you can provide credible evidence substantiating your claims of historical existence for Mary, Jesus etc. there’s simply no reason to believe it. Reasonable people will continue to reject the belief as groundless.

        So, if you have credible evidence for the existence of Mary and Jesus then, please provide it. You would be the first person throughout all history to ever do so, even the first Christians were not able to provide such evidence. I’m sure Jesus would be thrilled and you’d probably win a prize for doing what nobody else has ever been able to do. You might even get on the evening news.

    2. I find the Christian and Jewish practice of making they’re clearly Mythological Characters into Historical Characters to be highly superstitious, not proof of anything wonderful, and different.

  11. Fascinating, but…
    All this is very fascinating, and you all make very good points, but I think there is a possibility that has yet to be raised. Since there are quite a few legends of virgin mothers dating back thousands of years, it would be reasonable to theorize that a myth, legend, or prophecy (I like to keep an open mind) even further back may have influenced all the following religions, which would also explain the other similarities in religious myths that can’t be directly linked to another myth with any degree of certainty.

    Doesn’t it make more sense if some ancient religion, now forgotten, could have been absorbed into every religion that followed, after all, we are all part of the same human family, and by all indications, genetic research seems to support the theory that we were all born of the same ancestral parents way back when in a time long forgotten.

    Of course, people being people, it could just be that they tend to make up the same kinds of stories to explain the things they don’t understand whether or not they were influenced by another religion.

    Personally, I believe that much of [i]modern[/i] christianity is derived from a great many other religions including egyptian. That doesn’t mean, however that the concept of christianity at it’s core couldn’t have come first. Who really knows what stories were told in the days of prehistory? I rule nothing out without very good reason to do so. Honestly, if there is a higher power controlling our universe, then all religions probably hold at least a grain of truth to them, whether or not one of them got it right, because the rest were probably derived from the first.

    1. Yes, of course, no one is saying that these various myths don’t lead back to an even earlier archetype that was possibly held by humans tens of thousands of years ago.

      There’s no mystery about what the virgin birth represents. It is multifold, including providing a fairly logical perception that if there was a creator, she would be female, since women give birth, and if there was a single original being, she would have to create or give birth parthenogenetically.

      This virgin-birth motif is also applied in antiquity to celestial events such as the sunrise out of the pure or virginal Dawn, or the rising heliacally with the constellation of Virgin. Naturally, there were other factors in this complex perception of how things are created, including human psychological issues.

    2. I don’t like the “grain of truth” and “now forgotten” parts of what you said because the grain of truth was used to tell a huge lie, and the forgetting was engineered by various parties who had a desire to convert people en masse to their religion. However, I agree that these grains of truth are crumbs that lead us back to an earlier religion.

      If you and I had lived in the time of the Inquisition, then even if we knew the truth, we wouldn’t even tell our kids in secret because the knowledge itself could’ve gotten our kids killed. Terror is an effective silencer.

  12. Isis/Mary?
    I think that Mr. Murdock is ignoring the counter argument to the Isis/Mary supposition. The Mary of the Galilee is not the Mary of later dogma [c. 431 A.D]. If D.M. Murdock is interested in what Mary thought of herself, or, what the Evangelist Luke [i]wanted [/i]disciples to think she thought of herself look no further than the Song of Mary [Lk 1:46ff]. It is hard to ignore the [i]lack [/i]of archetypal Egyptian symbols is her own self-references. in these verses there is nothing magical or eternal in her self-understanding.

    It may be that the NT writers wanted us to see Mary as the epitome of discipleship or even the ideal woman in contrast to the Grecco-Roman stereotype of the era, but to suppose that she was invented in the likeness of Isis runs contrary to the evidence.


    1. I am not “ignoring the counter argument.” I was raised a Christian, and few people in the Christian world are unaware of the “counter argument.”

      The fact remains that the Virgin Mother concept is pre-Christian and was applicable to the goddess Isis. As I say below, there is little reason to suspect that the “Virgin Mary” is anything but a mythical remake of this ancient Goddess motif.

      1. How you were raised has absolutely no bearing on the value of your arguments for Mary being a copy-cat image of Isis. I might as well say that white men with blue eyes have a natural intelligence that makes me more credible for no other reason.

        If the Mary of the Galilee is a mythical remake of Isis, it is one in which the Isis mythology mysteriously played no part. If Mary was a fictional archetype and If you wanted to find a ‘holy mother’ figure from whom the Mary of the NT was taken from, you may be able to locate some fragmentary motif of her in the cult of Vesta or even as a type of Lucretia the wife of Lucius Tarquin. The connection to Isis is whishful thinking or even worse.

        1. The fact that I was raised a Christian certainly does have a bearing on whether or not I know the “counter argument,” since I was raised to believe in the “counter argument.” That you don’t understand that simple fact is more a reflection of your own inability to comprehend than of anything else.

          “If the Mary of the Galilee is a mythical remake of Isis, it is one in which the Isis mythology mysteriously played no part.”

          A ridiculously ignorant statement that is disproved by this very blog post itself. You seem to know nothing about Egyptian religion and history. The ancient Egyptians – Copts – themselves made the correlation between Isis and Mary for centuries. Much of the evidence for this fact can be found in my book Christ in Egypt ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]).

          I have no interest in continuing this discussion with someone who makes one fallacious contention and logical fallacy after another.

          In the meantime, the fact remains that the Virgin Mary is evidently a mythical rehash of the Virgin Isis-Mery, as well as other pre-Christian goddess figures ([url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/mary.html[/url]).

          1. If the Copts were making an Isis/Mary connection, I am willing to bet it was a later era than that of the Gospels [c. 4th C], very unorthodox and by groups who were not relying on our Matt, Mark Luke and John in thier liturgy. You still refuse to recognize that there was later accetion to the bibiical facts of Marys’ like, which is stubborn but not surprising considering the source.

            All the blog has done, in so far as I have read it, is prove that you are defining your own terms then applying them in any ad hoc way you like. I can see it, even if you don’t.

            In the meantime, the fact remains that the Isis of mythology has no connection to the Mary of Galilee and to continue to press on so hard only makes you look silly.


          2. It is evident you have not studied the subject in any depth, or you would know about all the evidence for the correlation between Isis and Mary – which, in reality, should be obvious from reading even this relatively short blog post.

            You did not, however, know about this evidence and previously made an erroneous contention that there was never any correlation between Isis and Mary. That claim was incorrect; yet, you plow ahead without acknowledging your error.

            The fact will remain that the Virgin Mary was identified with Isis quite extensively from the second or third centuries onward, which is actually when Christianity became formulated for the most part.

            You could read about this subject in my book [i]Christ in Egypt[/i] ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]). There you will find many correspondences between Isis and Mary – characteristics that pre-date the creation of Christianity by centuries to millennia. It matters not one whit whether or not the Egyptian Copts possessed “our” Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in their liturgy. (I am wagering by that language and your hostile defenses you are a Christian.) However, the Gospel of John was clearly written for an Egyptian audience and is late. It remains obvious that the gospel writers took Isis and a variety of other goddesses as the basis of their Jewish-Pagan hybrid.

            [quote]You still refuse to recognize that there was later accetion to the bibiical facts of Marys’ like, which is stubborn but not surprising considering the source.[/quote]
            Like many of your others, this is a false claim that merely reflects your lack of knowledge about my work; hence, your ad hom is a reflection of your own ignorance. Naturally, the mythical Mary’s life was accreted along the way, as she picked up even more Pagan mythological motifs and became less Jewish. That fact does not make her originally any less mythical, however.

  13. Female Creator/Mary/Isis
    Not so sure that I would agree with the substance of your article and some of your follow-up remarks. For one, while women indeed give birth, the cultures of the ANE generally believed that human life was carried by the male reproductive cells and that the woman contributed nothing except a host body.

    Also, while Isis would certainly fit into the category as you define it, Mary would probably not.

    Nevertheless, there are some interesting references to supposed partenogenesis in the Latin literature like that of Servius Tullius. Still, the very writers who mention him [e.g., Plutarch, Livy] seem less convinced of his virgin birth than the NT writers were of Jesus’.

    I’m just sayin’.


    1. Not sure what you’re trying to say, but the point of my article is that the Virgin-Mother motif is pre-Christian and has been applied to Isis, among others. There is little reason to suspect that the “Virgin Mary” is anything other than a Jewish remake of the pre-Christian Virgin-Mother Goddess.

  14. Dr. Reginald Witt, whom you cite in the article [see, Isis in the Ancient World, p. 273,274] explains that the Isis/Mary syncretism began during the reign of Theodosius [d. 395 A.D.] when the Catholics began closing pagan temples. Obviously, your own source would argue that the Isis cult carried over into Marian devotion in late antiquity and that your chronology is an example of [i]post hoc ergo propter hoc[/i].

    1. And he would be incorrect if he is stating that the assimilation [i]only [/i]started at that time. Again, the evidence for the Isis-Mary connection is provided in my book Christ in Egypt ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]). If you are interested in actually reading the data, rather than harassing me with obnoxious comments as you have done elsewhere, you are free to do so. Until then, I have no interest in this fruitless exchange with someone who clearly has not studied the subject in any depth.

      Here’s just one quote from Egyptologist Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge – whom I’m sure you will disparage although he is correct here and remains far more qualified on this subject than you are.

      “…at the last, when [Osiris’s] cult disappeared before the religion of the Man Christ, the Egyptians who embraced Christianity found that the moral system of the old cult and that of the new religion were so similar, and the promises of resurrection and immortality in each so much alike, that they transferred their allegiance from Osiris to Jesus of Nazareth without difficulty. Moreover,[b] Isis and the child Horus were straightaway identified with Mary the Virgin and her Son[/b], and in the apocryphal literature of the first few centuries which followed the evangelization of Egypt, several of the legends about Isis and her sorrowful wanderings were made to centre round the Mother of Christ. Certain of the attributes of the sister goddesses of Isis were also ascribed to her, and, like the goddess Neith of Sais, she was declared to possess perpetual virginity. Certain of the Christian Fathers gave to the Virgin the title “Theotokos” or “Mother of God,” forgetting apparently, that it was an exact translation of [i]neter mut[/i], a very old and common title of Isis.” (Budge, [i]The Gods of Egypt[/i], I, xv-xvi)

      As we can see, your earlier contention that there was never any correlation between Isis and Mary was completely incorrect, and it continues to be evident that you do not know the subject matter about which you pretend to be an expert. Fervent belief in unproved ideologies often makes people very dishonest, unfortunately.

  15. Thank you. The NT writers clearly got their idea in this regard from OT “messianic scriptures” such as Isaiah 7:14 AND the popular virgin-mother concept of pre-Christian pagan cultures around the known world.

    Please see my books ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com[/url]) for more information about this mythical motif. Also see my article/review Virgin Mothers of Antiquity ([url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin-mother-goddesses.html[/url]), among many others.


  16. There is just one thing I don’t understand… it’s when some people say this article proves the Bible is a copycat.

    Yes, Isis was given the title “Virgin” well before Mary.
    That doesn’t mean AT ALL there is necessary correlation.

    Virgin deities have existed in many many cultures. It doesn’t mean you always have one who influenced the other. It represents a human trait, just like it is a human trait to believe in gods.

    I rather think the reason why some NT authors mentioned Mary’s virginity was to “purify” her, and not especially because the authors had been influenced by egyptian mythology…

  17. Egyptian Mythology
    Why is it that the Actual Egyptian Museum (which yes I have been to), The Smithsonian Museum of History, and every other museum I have ever been to make the claim:

    Isis is not a Virgin – Crude version of the story is, she was married to Osiris, he was broken into 14 pieces, she rebuilt him and added a Penis, had sex with him, and Horus sprung out.

    I have seen you say that is due to conspiracy, but that is difficult to believe (i.e. Egyptian Mythology was entirely rewritten).

  18. Todd Lyon, do all those museums really go way out of their way to proclaim, “Isis is not a virgin”? Or, is this just your way of saying you are unaware of these facts:

    “The Pyramid Texts speak of “the great virgin” (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)” …

    “In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, [b]Isis herself declares:

    “I am the great virgin”[/b]

    – Christ in Egypt, page 152

    Dr. Witt, an Egyptologist:

    “The Egyptian goddess who was equally ‘the Great Virgin’ (hwnt) and ‘Mother of the God’ was the object of the very same praise bestowed upon her successor [Mary, Virgin Mother of Jesus].”

    – Christ in Egypt, page 120

    * The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old

    Here’s a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus. And, at 5:30 you’ll see a stone carving of Isis as she hovers over Osiris in the form of a bird to receive the divine seed ([b]notice there’s no ‘member'[/b]) of Osiris. Mojsov then says, “It’s a miraculous birth of the savior child.”

    Osiris – Pagan Origins of Christianity

    1. reply
      No they dont go out of their way to proclaim Isis is not a virgin, they simply state that she fashioned a Penis for Osiris, had sex with him (implying she was not a virgin), and out of that Horus was born. So no they dont go out of their way to claim it, but yes they flat out state she was not a virgin.

      1. LOL, it’s very telling that even after the proof within this very blog, you are in utter denial of the fact that Isis was a virgin as Isis herself declares in ancient primary sources that apparently got passed all these museums and Egyptologists. How convenient!!! There have been Egyptologists themselves point out Isis’ virginity and some of them were professed Christians admitting it. So, it just really seems like a serious case of selective perception:

        [b]”In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares:

        “I am the great virgin”[/b]

        – Christ in Egypt, page 152

        What part of the above do you and all these museums and Egyptologists not understand? Can they not see beyond the end of their noses or what?

        You said: “I have seen you say that is due to conspiracy”

        You are proving it right here. For some strange reason, people assume that if they omit the facts and primary sources that it miraculously makes them correct. It absolutely does not. There are other, far more honest Egyptologists who concede to Isis’ virginity such as the video I posted above, which you apparently refused to watch demonstrating that you have no interest in the facts on this issue. That video shows the primary sources of this scene and there is NO ‘MEMBER’ at all as Isis hovers over Osiris in the form of a BIRD!!! You cannot omit or ignore these facts. There was no real sex it was ethereall!!! Plus, almost nobody is aware of the fact that in ancient times they believed a female could regain her virginity via sacred union with god – regardless of being married or the number of children she had. This mystery is described by the ancient Jewish writer Philo among others.

        The Egyptian religion flourished for over 3,000 years and because of that there certainly are variations in the myths especially at different locations. Plus, the fact that some Egyptologists are professed Christians who are blatantly dishonest about the FACT that Isis was a virgin. Still, I love how people make such a big deal out of the supposed mating between Osiris & Isis all while omitting the fact that Osiris had been cut into 14 pieces, including cutting off his ‘member.’!!! So, you really believe that Isis put him back together so they could make mad passionate love? You really think he could ‘get it up’ after having his ‘member’ cut off? It just seems like people who simply WISH none of this were true are quick to jump to pre-concieved conclusions without ever thinking it through merely because its inconvenient to their own beliefs. Including, apparently, those Egyptologists and museums, which is really embarrassing for them.


        1. reply
          You posting on a message board is not proof. If the recognized mythology in every textbook, museum, encyclopedia, The History Channel, etc …. is that Isis is not a Virgin, and that Osiris is the Father of Horus, It would be a little ridiculous for me to all of a sudden believe that you (someone I know nothing about on an Internet chat room) are correct and all the sources I’ve listed above that have become more or less common knowledge in the world are wrong. The quote I made about “it being due to some conspiracy”, was me quoting Acharya S. Do I think it is a conspiracy? No I don’t, but yes that is the only possible explanation.

      2. If she “fashioned” him a member, then she did not have sex with a penis. I don’t think sex with a dildo counts as losing virginity. Besides her husband was her brother. In those days, people did marry their relatives for nothing else but safety. Simply taking hold of a piece of paper with a marriage contract on it would force a woman to marry a man. It was safer to marry a relative until you decided who to marry. Learn about the culture of those times, find out about the people and their ethnic uniqueness. Just because we have a modern myth that states everyone in the ME is the same doesn’t make it so (as centuries of factional fighting proves).

  19. Todd Lyon “no University in the world accepts websites or internet material as a source”

    Ahh, are you serious? How did you make it through college without understanding that you need to follow source citations found in books, TV, videos, blogs, net or whatever? It’s as if you never made it out of high school, C’mon Todd. I should never have had to explain this to you.

    Todd Lyon “I am sure they have sources of some kind to back up their arguments as well. The Encyclopedia had like 35 sources cited.”

    And yet, none of those sources include the primary sources cited here. You should be curious as to [b]WHY[/b] that is. The problems are not always what scholars and encyclopedias say … it’s often [b]WHAT THEY DON’T SAY[/b]. We know for a fact that the church has worked tirelessly to lobby universities and colleges to ensure that they do not include this type of information in their courses. So, it should surprise no one that these facts are not well known, common knowledge of wide spread. It’s not hard to see if you look to check for yourself.

    Todd Lyon “Engineer and Mathematician”

    What specifically are your qualifications and credentials? Just going to museums does not in any way make anyone an expert on ancient religious history. If you’re seriously interested in these issues you are welcome to read through the links I just posted in my previous post. If you think you’ve found an error or something wrong be sure to let us know. Good luck with that.

    Here’s a BBC Documentary you may appreciate since it’s based on a true story: The Mystery of the Rosetta Stone.

    Rosetta Stone Language Key Part 1 (1-8 )

    Take notice how the church gets heavily involved to control the situation.

    Below is a quote demonstrating that Egyptologists do not know everything:

    [quote]The ancient Egyptian religion is a sun-based religion and the yearly cycle of the stars was very important for them to calculate their calender. It would be surprising if there was no an alignment with certain celestial phenomena. However, archaeoastronomy is not an established science working hand in hand with archaeology in much of Mespotamia and Egypt. There are several reasons for this:

    “The problem is that until recently hardly any research was done in that area: Egyptologists are no astronomers, and calculations in that field are extremely complex. This was taken for granted, but not a field of research. So nothing to much ‘scientific’ can be said, simply because of lack of data. That is something else than saying Egyptologists dismiss celestial alignments: they simply never looked into it. That is the disadvantage of a rich culture like that of the Egyptians: one can’t do everything.”

    – Paul Haanen, Archaeologist in Egypt ([url]http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5339#p5339[/url])[/quote]

  20. Todd Lyon “You posting on a message board is not proof”

    Stop being so daft, please, the sources are cited in this very blog, from there you can look them up for yourself. If you were serious about this you would already have done so for yourself.

    Todd Lyon “It would be a little ridiculous for me to all of a sudden believe that you are correct and all the sources I’ve listed above that have become more or less common knowledge in the world are wrong.”

    What’s really ridiculous is how pathetically wrong they are if they’re leading people to believe Isis was not a virgin when we have proof in ancient primary texts that she was. Again, that’s not me or Acharya S or anybody else making it up, that’s Egyptologists themselves citing primary sources and some of those Egyptologists were Christians. What part of that do you not understand? None of that appears to make you curious at all, which is really weird. It makes me wonder if you’re only here with an agenda to shore up your Christian faith even if it means being dishonest – like so many others. Are you a Christian or not? Is that what you’re doing here? Be honest.

    If you’re serious about getting to the facts and evidence there’s a nearly 600 page book entitled, Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection ([url]http://stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html[/url]). Christ in Egypt is nearly 600 pages and contains almost 2,400 footnote/citations to primary sources and expert commentary on them from a wide variety of backgrounds & expertise, including Egyptologists and many Christian scholars, from over 900 bibliographical references to scholarly journals, books, articles etc and 60+ images and a map.

    So, share that with those museums and Egyptologists first chance you get. All of the sources are cited you can look them up and see them for yourself. Then, you can begin to ask those museums and Egyptologists how and why they got things so wrong. It’s embarrassing for them and they should be made aware of it asap.

    For a quick sample of this be sure to read this article:

    Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning ‘Zeitgeist, Part 1’ ([url]http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html[/url])

    You might as well read these too:

    Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence ([url]http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997[/url])

    The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (August 2010) Transcript ([url]http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf[/url])

    Todd Lyon “The quote I made about “it being due to some conspiracy”, was me quoting Acharya S.”

    Please cite your source. It’s certainly not in this blog.

    1. reply
      Nope, honestly am not a Christian, but as an Engineer and Mathematician am Certainly not an Atheist either.

      In closing, now that you know my background, assuming you were correct about Isis being a Virgin, I doubt the national museums of the world are going to listen to me if I go in their and tell them otherwise.

      “So, share that with those museums and Egyptologists first chance you get. All of the sources are cited you can look them up and see them for yourself. Then, you can begin to ask those museums and Egyptologists how and why they got things so wrong.”

      Additionally I am sure they have sources of some kind to back up their arguments as well. The Encyclopedia had like 35 sources cited. Also just a piece of advice, but no University in the world accepts websites or internet material as a source (Not all of your sources were I realize but some of them are).

  21. Pathetic attempt to discredit Christianity
    Honey, your desperate attempts to tie Isis to Mary are as pathetic as they are useless.

    You mean to tell me that Isis, who had had sexual intercourse with her revived Husband in order to conceive Horus, is the inspiration for Mary, who had never had any sexual relationships whatsoever ?

    So Isis was called ” the virgin goddess ”, well islam too is called ”the religion of peace ”…and we know Isis wasn’t a virgin any more than islam is the religion of peace.

    You argument is ” It doesn’t matter that Isis wasn’t a virgin because the ancient Egyptians would call her ”a virgin” ”. Well maybe by virgin they were referring to the fact that she was a WIDOW, that she had become sexually inactive. ”Virgin” didn’t mean to Egyptians what it meant to Jews, OBVIOUSLY.

    Seriously honey, Mary was a genuine virgin, unlike Isis. The way you’re trying to convince people that Mary, who was sexually pure, was inspired by Isis, who was sexually impure, is just PATHETIC !

    1. Thank you, dearie, but you have displayed an utter lack of comprehension and knowledge of the subject in your attempt to uphold a ridiculous Jewish fairytale and to bludgeon us with your supposed intelligence and erudition.

      In the meantime, despite your ranting and derogation, the fact will remain that the Virgin Mother concept was not only present and but also apparently quite popular in the Egyptian religion, dating back some 7,000 years with the goddess Neith, extending to her later counterpart Isis. You speak of Isis and Osiris as if they are “real people”; with such an erroneous and ignorant impression, you apparently cannot fathom this MYTHICAL virgin mother concept.

      I have provided the evidence abundantly here, using primary sources that predate Christianity by hundreds to thousands of years – your inability to accept and understand it is your issue and your own willful bigotry and ignorance.

      I’m wondering what part of “ISIS IS A VIRGIN MOTHER” did you not understand? Or perhaps you didn’t even read this post before you decided to post such remarks? It appears you did not read anything on this page, including all of the comments – such behavior from the “faithful” is unfortunately quite typical.

      Here are the facts AGAIN:

      Isis is called the “Great Virgin.” Her manner of impregnation in MYTHS is irrelevant, because that is how ancient MYTHOLOGY works. The Virgin Mother concept extends back thousands of years, and was clearly co-opted in Christianity. We are not discussing “real people” here with genitalia: In one myth in which Isis is impregnated with Osiris’s “phallus,” the reference is to the star Sothis/Sirius, which heralds the arrival of the Nile flood, represented by Osiris, to fertilize the river’s banks, represented by Isis. It’s a NATURE MYTH, and MYTHS often change for various reasons. The fact will remain that the Nile banks were “virginal” every year, especially AFTER the flood. So, in this MYTH, the impregnation of Isis by Osiris actually serves to make her virginal, with new top soil – that is how “Isis” is [i]fertilized[/i], using Osiris’s “water.” The new topsoil on the banks of the Nile allows for the food to be grown; hence, in this myth Isis’s virginity actually serves to make her more fertile. Because the Egyptians were largely dependent on the Nile to keep them alive, Osiris and Isis were viewed as saviors, centuries before the alleged advent of Christ.

      The only thing “pathetic” here is the desperate attempt by blind believers in Jewish fairytales to make others ignore these FACTS by spewing insults and falsehoods at them.

      For more information on the ancient, pre-Christian virgin-mother concept, see Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity ([url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin-mother-goddesses.html[/url]) by Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso. Let me repeat, [b]the virgin mother concept long predates Christianity and was clearly incorporated into Christianity in order to usurp the earlier, widespread and well-known motif.[/b] All Christianity did was to make the fictional Mary into an even more obsessively “virginal” figure, reflecting the mentality of its creators.

      No amount of snide derogation and fallacious contentions will change that fact.

      Early Church fathers like Justin Martyr were well aware of the pre-Christian virgin mother motif, remarking in his [i]First Apology[/i]:

      [quote]Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ.

      And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced [b]without sexual union[/b], and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.[/quote]
      In his [i]Dialogue with Trypho[/i] (66), in defense of Christ’s virgin birth, Justin also says:

      [quote]…in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that [i]Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin[/i]; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower.[/quote]
      In chapter 22 of his [i]First Apology[/i], Justin reiterates the comparison between Christ’s birth and that of Perseus:

      [quote]And if we affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.[/quote]
      The only way anyone can cling to this notion of a uniquely virginal Jewish Mother of God is through ignorance of ancient cultures and early Christian history.

    2. too-smart, You think Osiris and Isis really ‘got it on’ and made mad passionate love after Osiris was cut into 14 pieces, huhh? You really think he could ‘get it up’ after having his willy cut off?

      “Here’s a video clip of modern Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov admitting parallels between Osiris &/or Horus with Jesus. And, at 5:30 you’ll see a stone carving of Isis as she hovers over Osiris in the form of a bird to receive the divine seed (notice there’s no ‘member’) of Osiris. Mojsov then says, “It’s a miraculous birth of the savior child.”


  22. ?
    Acharya S
    I have seen you before make the claim that because the characters in question are mythological manner of impregnation and whether the woman in question had sex or not does not matter and to be honest it just doesn’t make any sense.
    Definition of a virgin in the past is the same as it is today, and to say that anyone or anything can repeatedly do things that not only remove the attribute they hold but also makes them incapable of having that attribute ever again is to render the term null and void.
    Why call them the virgins in the first place when you know that they are not and cannot be.
    I know that some ancient nations where not all that good when it comes to logic but I know of none that was this bad at it and on top of it what you are saying suggests almost every single ancient nation did this.
    Your explanation of this is simply [i]”that is how ancient MYTHOLOGY works”[/i] and you expect us to accept that everyone just played along; that in all those ancient culture that gave us thinkers like Imhotep, Socrates, Plato…ect. there was not a single person that just said “Are you people blind? Are you stupid? Can’t you see that she is NOT a virgin, that she had sex, it makes no fu**ing sense to call her a virgin?”, that nobody made fun of such a belief the runs contrary to basic logic?

    1. Despite all the ranting, raving, cursing and freaking out, the facts will remain as I have stated here and elsewhere. It matters not what [i]we[/i] think about the mythology – the mythology remains as stated. However, there exists good reason for this interesting mythology, and I have not “simply” explained it away in one sentence – I have written reams about this subject of the ancient virgin-mother goddess, which is indeed a mythological motif or “fact,” so to speak.

      In the ancient myth of the Virgin Mother Goddess found in many places globally, the Goddess both gives birth and yet remains virginal, since it was believed she was self-contained and gave birth without assistance. The consort concept is introduced into mythology over a period of time in different cultures. Yet, the virginal status remains, because the goddess is not a person with real genitals, as I have indeed previously explained, but represents a variety of natural phenomena.

      For example, the virgin-mother goddess often has represented the dawn, the fresh and virginal time of the day, which was said to give birth to the rising sun. Thus, she gives birth yet remains a virgin. Moreover, the Greek father god Zeus’s wife, Hera, is depicted in antiquity as renewing her virginity by bathing in a river every year – I discuss these mythological motifs in my books dating back to the late nineties. In Indian mythology ([url]http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1597[/url]), as found in the Mahabharata for example, there are several instances of virgin mothers, some of whom have had “intercourse” with the sun yet have remained virgins or become “born-again virgins,” so to speak.

      As concerns Isis in specific, when the texts discuss the “sharp Sothis” as a “phallus” used to impregnate her, they are referring to the appearance of the star Sirius, representative of Osiris, who also symbolizes the water in the Nile and the Nile river itself. At the appearance of Sirius near the summer solstice, the Egyptians could count on the Nile to overflow its banks, depositing the fertile soil – symbolized by Isis – thus “impregnating” her.

      The reason Osiris is frequently depicted as green, it seems, is because he represents the color of photosynthesis. As the fertile soil is deposited on the banks, it has become [i]virgin [/i]soil. In this mythological instance, the impregnation actually [i]causes [/i]the virginity. Here is why I continue to emphasize that we are talking about myths, not real people with genitalia. It is likely that the great thinkers of antiquity were bright enough to grok these ideas, which contain scientific knowledge of a very important sort – without the Nile overflowing its banks, for example, famine would ensue.

      The concept is not that difficult to understand. If you are interested in more on the subject, I have provided many primary sources as well as further reading. Here are some again:

      Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity ([url]http://truthbeknown.com/virgin-mother-goddesses.html[/url])

      I have a long chapter in my book [i]Christ in Egypt[/i] ([url]http://books.google.com/books?id=Iaqe9CG_s6cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=christ+in+egypt+murdock&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3_Q_T-LDNuTV0QHbpJCrBw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22a%20number%20of%20individuals%20have%20brought%22&f=false[/url]) that discusses the Virgin Mother motif.

      This phenomenon of the virgin-mother goddess is so well known within academia that there is a term to describe it: “parthenogenesis.”

  23. May I..
    I have read thru this thread and one thing that stand out about all the thread is, Astrotheology is not Astronomy but Astrology. Isis is the Moon Goddess. For the Moon Goddess to be virgin then the full moon would be in Virgo. That would place the Sun in Pieces. Isn’t that the period of time associated with the flooding of the Nile which followed soon after. During the fertilization of the Nile river banks. Represented by the Egg and the Rabbit which is Egyptian and not Christian.
    Not one person here made reference to the well known craft of Astrology by the early Egyptians and Greeks and Hebrews and Hindus and Persian and Chinese. Where are all the scholars who profess a knowledge of the oldest craft known to man…oh..I for got Carl Sagan. Whom I thought was a puff mentality at best. Not understanding the structure of what is. Unless we co-relate what the ancients actually understood, the best we could come up with is what is understood by us..who simply do not grasp the concept of Mythology. Try Liz Green, give some of her books a read. She is no fool.
    These Gods and Goddesses that we are reading about are desires that are inherit in all of us, represented by a story line that describes astrological configurations. Isis did not exist as a human being, Isis is the Moon Cult of early Egypt, which gave way to the Sun Cult of Amen/Amun-Ra. For Isis to be the virgin and gave birth to Horus, only represents the concept of the Moon in Virgo and the Sun in Pieces. The full moon Virgin in Virgo Isis. The end of winter and the beginning of Spring. Egyptians were more into the Mystical than the Scientific reality that we live to day…and I am not talking superstition, if I am, then explain to me how they moved stones that weigh in excess of 200 tons hundreds of miles to there building sites..I can’t…maybe some of those scholars could.
    Then to say that Christ Consciousness is a myth created by the Romans because the letter “j” did not exist. Then how would you spell Julius Caesar or Janus, or January. Just because the letter was created later on does not take away validation of a Christ or A God because a letter didn’t exist then. Give attention the the idea that Christ never mentioned the “Lord God” but always referred to it as the “Father” or simply “God”. again go back to the book of Genesis and read the first two chapters..the first deals with God and the Second deals with a MIRROR image of God called the LORD GOD. How many people did the Lord God have slaughtered and how many people did Lucifer slaughter. Stunning.
    The early Christians as they are called but never called themselves that, were Gnostic. And were heavy into mysticism. Yeshua Ben Joesph was a Messiah, Prophet, Shaman…with an unquenchable thirst to understand the Source Energy we call God. And he did. It took the Romans 300 yrs of slaughtering the Early Gnostic until they discovered that this movement was infiltrating the empire. Constantine needed control of this movement, therefore arranged the Council of Nicea in order to put together the Roman Catholic understanding of this Christ. Imagine if the Council of Nicea couldn’t formulate a correct system, Constantine would have cut off there heads…they did a good job, even created the Old Testament at the same time, leaving out countless other documents of the time to ensure the future people would only be exposed to there Religion. That religion is fear. Without fear they had no power. Without fear of Religion then no fear of Government. Christ taught one very simple truth. That is no Priest, King, Cleric, cop,Judge can stand in the way of you and God. That God is inside of you not behind a cloud with a big head. That you are divine and you do not belong on this plane of existence. That we come from the God Head as described in the First Book of Genesis, before the Second Chapter…The second chapter represents a lesser god. Now is that Myth or Mysticism. The ancient Sumers knew what they were doing, we don’t.
    I am not going to argue with anyone, I will talk but, I think Acharya did a fine job on understanding what other people wrote, who being more scientific in there determinations as I would be. She is very intelligent and I did read her book yrs ago, I believe Christ in Egypt or the Myth of Christ or something like that. But it wasn’t were I was at.
    One more point, Pope Leo..the number escapes me, there were so many of these guys…that
    “THE MYTH OF CHRIST HAS SERVED US WELL”…that was the myth that the Roman Church created. Mary was not a virgin, Christ was no more divine than we are, and that we can all be the same as he was, if we just want to seek it out. I can explain the concept of virgin birth astrologically but not now, I already posted a lot.
    I’m a Gnostic and my religion is Mankind.

  24. Seriously guys?
    How does f**king your dead husband’s penis to get pregnant make you a virgin?

    If you want a pre-Christ virgin birth story look at Mithra, not Horus.

    1. Thank you.

      You didn’t even read this post, did you? Your objection is addressed throughout this article.

      Go back and read it again.

      Read the title again – it’s a mythological “fact.”

      I doubt that you would have the data for the virgin birth of Mithra, either, and not a few people would claim that what you are saying about Mithra is also WRONG.

      However, as I have demonstrated in this article – PROVING that Isis was deemed the “Great VIRGIN” as part of the old tradition of goddesses as parthenogenetic creatrices – I have also written extensively about Mithra having been born of a virgin mother ([url]http://www.amazon.com/Mithra-Born-Virgin-Mother-ebook/dp/B004L2LKJI/truthbeknownfoun[/url]).

      It’s always a good idea to actually READ a post before commenting on it.


  25. You keep saying Jewish fairytale. The NT is not a Jewish fairytale. Jews do not accept any idea of a virginal birth. Jesus is in no way considered a descendent of David. This is purely a Christian fairytale. Please stop calling it a Jewish fairytale when it is far from that.

    Other than that, interesting stuff.

    1. Thank you.

      The gospel story is most assuredly a [i]Jewish [/i]fairytale, since it was largely created by Jews, before there were Christians, based on Jewish doctrines, scriptures and apocryphal writings, revolving around Jewish characters and promulgating the concept of Jews as God’s “chosen people.” The holiest concepts and characters of antiquity were all turned into Jewish “divine revelation,” a Jewish “messiah” and “son of God,” along with a Jewish remake of the virgin-mother goddess and Jewish “disciples of the Lord.”

      There were, of course, non-Jews involved in the affair, but it is obvious that Judaism is the basis of the tale, since the Old Testament is attached to the New, the New Testament draws significantly from the Greek OT/Septuagint, and the whole shebang revolves around the Jewish tribal god Yahweh.

      It certainly ain’t a Japanese fairytale!

      [quote]”Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk-tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer-books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of the learning of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible. What our people thought and taught has become inextricably woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage.

      “Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of motherhood and womanhood. A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you.”

      Marcus Eli Ravage, “A Real Case Against the Jews” [i]The Century Magazine[/i], v. 115, no. 3, The Century Co., NY, 1928, p. 346ff [/quote]

  26. The problem is that your position is simply not worthy of any respect. You have not “proved Jesus” and you begin to lose credibility by making such claims. Nobody here serves Horus or any other false religious claims.

    That old religious superstition may have served its purpose 2,000 years ago but, today, in the 21st century we all need to held to same standards for evidence to substantiate claims and provide the ‘burden of proof’ for those claims – especially supernatural religious claims. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.

    Faith and euphoria are not credible evidence and they certainly don’t trump credible evidence that actually exists proving the contrary. You’re free to believe in Jesus but don’t be surprised when nobody believes you.

    There are many good reasons not to trust Jesus or Christianity throughout history. Such as the murder of around 250 million – forcing the survivors to accept Christianity or die.

    How many has God killed? ([url]http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2381[/url])

    Pagan Destruction Chronology (314-870 C.E) ([url]http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12120#12120[/url])

    The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus:

    John 15:6 “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

    There’s good reason not believe in Christianity:

    Zeitgeist Part 1 ([url]http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997[/url])

  27. Respect
    I appreciate the fact you have done research, it is our own responsibility to search and choose what we believe and I will respect your decision, however we all are entitled to our choice without sarcasm or anger.

    The GOD that I choose to serve and the one I have researched thru and thru and proved to be true in my own life as well as my families life is JESUS.

    So please respect our decisions of whom we serve, and if you choose to serve Horus or any other Religion then please, feel free to do so after all we are responsible for our own choices and one day we will stand before our Judge and answer for our decisions.

    In the end that will be all that matters isn’t it.

    1. If you want respect, you should offer it. The Christian Church has not shown much respect to nature religions, or even other Ziggurat builders. In fact, they’ve intentionally destroyed icons, documents, etc and then crowed “heresy” and “umprovable” when someone tried to reconstruct the lost history. That’s not respectful.

  28. Isis is a virgin mother!!!
    As a teacher and lover of Art, I have an insatiable appetite for the art and folklore of ancient civilizations and prehistoric cultures and have amassed an extensive library of books and other materials over the years. Despite this, I have yet to find an acceptable consensus of opinion amongst my colleagues and peers which I could present to my students as “based on facts”.
    Careful not to exploit my position as an educator based on my own personal opinions, I lead my students to the information which is available and we then discuss the merits of varying and often opposing theories. When any new evidence is presented or obtained throughout individual or group research, it is given due consideration and is sensitively analyzed and discussed.
    My students are a very diverse cultural group and I never denigrate their personal, individual beliefs or religious affiliations. To use harsh or offensive adjectives when reviewing their understanding of theories which are sometimes quite shocking and alien to them, would be counter-productive and leave them feeling alienated or worse- ridiculed, and therefore less likely to contribute to, or even engage in, future discussions.
    That which resonates with us on a psychological level forms the basis for our understanding, despite cultural and/or religious overlays. It is my personal understanding, that the entirety of human history thus far, is all based on supposition, which will one day be replaced or simply added to by more supposition, perhaps even including my own suppositions. I then encourage my students to draw their own conclusions. Then I remind them, that once they have drawn their own conclusions, they should always keep their minds open to new ideas, new ideologies and particularly to the insights they can gain from discussing and listening to the opinions of others…respectfully.

  29. It undoubtedly a known and logical fact that religion is no more than astrological concepts and phenomonea anthropomorphisized,zoo-morphisized,and with the arrival of the Ptolemic dynasties….it would soon due to a series of councils become literalized. It not rocket science. Extraordinary work Archaya. (excuse my mispelled words)

  30. “Isis is the one who come from the mountain at midday in summer, the dusty maiden; her eyes are full of tears and her heart is full of sighs.”

    Greek Magical Papyri


    Hermetic Isis, or the Virgin of the World (Kore Kosmou)




  31. Jungian Perspective
    What you have documented is just the tip of the mythological iceberg.
    Zoroaster’s birth was virginal and so was the birth of the Bhudda. We also have multiple suffering saviors, several of whom died on a cross! From a Jungian perspective this is unsurprising. The savior motif and the virginal mother motif are archetypes. They are hardwired into our brains and we then project them onto the heavens (the constellation Virgo) or incorporate these ideas into our religious beliefs. It is therefore simplistic to say that Christianity stole the Virgin Mother concept from Egyptian beliefs. In fact, we may argue that the deep-seated nature of this belief across many, many different religions suggests that this concept has objective existence in the collective unconscious.

    1. Indeed Jim, this is just one blog and is just “[i]the tip of the mythological iceberg[/i].” Acharya has written over 2,100 pages on these subjects across several books so far with more soon to come at: Stellar House Publishing ([url]http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/index.html[/url])

      The Zeitgeist movie part 1 ([url]http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997[/url]) gives another basic introduction and is yet just another tip of the iceberg.

  32. Jung was not an Athieist!
    Jung viewed Jesus as a complete realization of the archetype. In a sense, Jesus was the archetype. He really lived at a particular point in time but also transcended time. His life reverberated backward and forward in time so he could be said to have created the archetype. Jung was definitely not an orthodox Christian, but he had a deep religious sensibility. Jung’s ideas began to crystallize from studies of comparative religion and treating the insane in an asylum. To some extent, we are all inmates in the asylum!

  33. There was no #December during this time period.
    This is from a Gregorian calendar. Look it up!!!! #WinterSolstice

  34. Christmas is based on the winter solstice.

    #December25th was the date of the winter solstice in the calendar Julius Caesar devised for Rome in 46BC. Today the winter solstice usually occurs on December 21st. Although Caesar used a 365 1/4 day year, a year is actually a little shorter, and this made the solstice occur a little earlier over the years. There was a discrepancy of 1 day in 128 years. #JulianCalender #RenderUntoCaesar

  35. There are many who believe that Israel is an ancient word denoting Isis-Ra-El, the holy trinity, which not only existed long before Christianity, but was worshiped in Canaan as Inanna-Baal-Enlil (although the exact names differed by tribe, the trinity did not). When the Jewish wandering tribes coalesced and believed Ezekiel’s vision that YHWH had given them Canaan’s tribal lands for their own, they adopted the name. If you read ancient myths of the multiple tribes called the Narts (just north of the Holy land), you will find other Virgin mother myths still surviving but largely unknown since they are not part of the “modern” world yet. Soon, they will be and we will see.

    The Hungarians also have a Virgin Mother myth, which some modern people have forgotten, the Myth of Emese and Almos. And the virgin story about Mary can’t be dated farther back than the 14th century. The pagan leader of the Hungarians in “AD 1000” (a fake date anyway, chosen by the Church), Koppany, was a descendant of Emese. In fact, he wouldn’t have been accepted as King unless he was believed to be her descendant.

    The Virgin birth myth is a “monomyth” of women who are the mothers of a line of Kings on earth. The divine right of Kings passed through women. You don’t have sons without a mother. Each city-state in Biblical times had a divine origin myth, often with a virgin birth at the beginning.

    More speculation: The name of the ancient city of Copan in Honduras sounds very much like “Koppany” when pronounced in Hungarian. Drawings from the 18th and 19th century show a bust of a woman who looks very much like the Kannon of today (Buddha on her forehead, wavy hood over both her head and the Buddha). It could be a bust of Emese. Those images are particularly different from the other Ziggurat builders in Mesoamerica. Some speculate that that one particular settlement was the lost tribe of Pagan Hungarians.

    Further speculation: There are groups of people all over the Near East, (ie. Bangledesh and just north of Tibet) who fit the model of a Sun-god-king religion. There are ascetics called Bauls ( I don’t have to point out the similarity to Baal, do I? ) who live in a way that matches many things that Jesus said. Their origins are purposely destroyed by themselves. They believe in current reality only, not maintaining the past. However, they also were badly persecuted and their old songs were lost, some of them have been collecting the songs again from the neighboring Buddhists.

    Finally, the Balinese head of their pantheon is Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa, a sun God of similar features as Baal who is depicted in most art in gold (ie just like any sun god would be almost anywhere in the world). He is the origin of the Gods, before the trinity. Although Hindus then have an all male trinity on the next tier (Tri Murti), not everyone in Bali is a Hindu. Hindu has a tendency to absorb local customs into itself, repainting icons in its own style, but that one God has not lost all his original looks. Some speculate that the “golden Buddha” is part of the absorption of local Sun Gods.

    It is my belief that the spread of Buddhism and Hindu have to do with making a peaceful path for the Silk Road. They didn’t so much want to acculturate people as they wanted to end the tribal fighting so that goods could travel on long roads with relative safety. Part of that was to organize the creation of idols to have some similarities, giving people a feeling of kinship with nearby tribes, instead of competition.

    Why that idea didn’t work in the Middle East, I don’t know. I suspect it was because Muslims were so violent towards idols, and people felt hurt emotionally by that. Mohamed’s choice was to force everyone to become Muslim, and destroy everything “idolatrous” in order to create peace among warring tribes. Hence, the people felt adrift when their tribes did not have any ethnic anchor anymore. They broke up into factions instead. We see how well acculturation worked. Good try, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

    Anyway, there’s no way that the religion of Jesus was Jewish. Just read the Bible and it’s clear enough, especially think about what he says when he is at his trial. He was part of this older Virgin-birth religion that worships the Sun, possibly even Baal. Eventually the story of the Virgin birth was brought back to Christianity when it looked safe to do so because Mohamed had wiped out knowledge of it in the Middle East and Egypt, and the Pagans had been fully quelled in Europe. Anything else could be discredited or buried in Archives. The Inquisition purged Europe of any remaining memory of the true Christ.

    It’s pretty obvious the Church knew about the traveling in Ancient times to the “New World” also, and the probable existence of the Old Religion on Mesoamerican soil. Whenever a Bishop went there, he destroyed everything he got his hands on, but the priests did not. Why? I think it’s because the Bishops knew what was contained in the secret Church archives, the real history, including the travels. Why else would they burn the written language of the natives in Mexico, Honduras, and etc, in such a rush? And then call them illiterate savages?

    Why else tear down their idols and take off the veneer of gold? Not only greed, also hiding the truth, that these were the escaped European+Natives descendants who fled from the conversion processes. It took 200 years before anyone took the “savages” seriously and started trying to find out who they really were. By then, oral memory was badly messed up. Which suited the Church just fine, they could claim they were heretical ravings.

Comments are closed.