Christ in Egypt: The Virgin Isis-Mery

[tat tvam asi]

Vary good, except for this being "symbolical."

What else is it? Are you literally born out of a womb twice? Or are you talking about an experience which you refer to, symbolically of course, as being born again, or born for a second time?

[Robert Tulip]

it is important that we understand what the word "virgin" for Mary, mother of Jesus, means. We know she wasn't "married", that is obvious from the story, but was she really a virgin? And how do we know that?
In the case of Isis it is very different. She was not a human, but a goddess. She impregnated herself, something Mary couldn't do.
What the book says is that the idea of Isis was transfered to Mary in an attempt to make Jesus a Son of God. I think that observation is correct because of the Isis cult in Rome. The problem with that idea is that Jesus was a semi-god, hardly a jewish concept, but very Greek indeed. And of course the Greek influence during the time Jesus is supposed to have walked the earth was immense. Also Egypt was a Greek province, from the time of Prolemy I, who was turned into the God Serapis, who was also called "the saviour", to Cleopatra. It all points to adaptation.
The problem with adaptation is that the true meaning of the original (the Isis story) might already have been forgotten, or misinterpreted by people outside Egypt. So Isis WAS a virgin, but Mary was an unmarried woman who gave birth to a baby. However, the baby was regarded as a semi-god - which means his father is a god - and in the male society this story came to be, a god would of course not have a baby from a woman who was NOT a virgin. It is still very important in Islam and we all know about virginity repair!!
The step from Isis to Mary is an easy step considering the very popular Isis cult and christians who were eager to win men AND women to their side.
But is it correct to transfer the (hidden?) meaning of the Isis-Horus story to the Mary-Jesus story?

Hello Drdalet, thank you for joining the conversation, and welcome to Booktalk. Your post assumes that Jesus and Mary were real people. There is no evidence whatsoever for this theory, except long tradition of church teaching. By contrast, the hypothesis that Mary and Jesus were invented in order to incarnate the Egyptian myth of Isis and Horus provides a far more elegant explanation for the origin of Christianity.

The Christian story makes no sense except in its Egyptian historical context, as another mutation of an old myth. But this mutation, seeking to give the myth the power to confront Rome through the device of incarnation, unleashed forces that its inventors could hardly have imagined, as the church took the doctrine of incarnation as a tool of monolithic secular power.

As pointed out in the title of this thread, Isis was known as Mery, which meant beloved. Christianity made her myth more powerful in one sense by incarnating it as Mary, except that this stratagem backfired once the stupidity of popular mythmaking took over, the Egyptian roots were forgotten and Mary was converted into a patriarchal idol. The natural backstory remains hidden in the daily revival of life as the sun (Jesus) is born at dawn (the virginal Isis)

The recognition that Jesus and Mary were not real is such a shock to true believers that they reject it out of hand as destructive to their idolatry. And yet, examining the source material provides a series of circumstantial indicators that Christianity is entirely fictional. For a start, the whole Jesus story is entirely absent from the contemporary historical record, with the only flimsy supposed references far too late, too obscure or too obviously fraudulent.

This is very bizarre for such a supposedly prominent series of events and should raise immediate suspicions of fraud. Even the supposition that the Jesus story was embroidered from actual history makes little sense, in view of the continuity with Egyptian precedent. The fanatical efforts of Christians to destroy 'unorthodox' material raises further big questions about their motives, suggesting they wanted to conceal evidence of their fraud.

So your questions that I have bolded above about the virginity of Mary are non-questions, because they presuppose that Mary was a real person, when in fact she was not. Murdock mentions Plutarch's critique of evemerism, in which he commented to the effect that dragging gods down to earth as literal individuals was an act of impiety and disrespect, an idolatrous failure to respect eternal mythic identity. The blessed virgin mary is nothing but an idol, a totemic fetish who serves purely secular purposes of church power, including the suppression of female identity.

Debating the virginity of Mary is exactly the same as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a foolish scholastic game that refuses to examine its assumptions critically. The only way the debate makes sense is to explore how the myth of Mary emerged by cultural evolution from earlier precedents such as Isis, and then to explore the cultural meaning of Isis, especially how the Egyptians regarded their gods as forces of nature.

[a gnostic]

Vary good, except for this being "symbolical."

What else is it? Are you literally born out of a womb twice? Or are you talking about an experience which you refer to, symbolically of course, as being born again, or born for a second time?

I am not allowed to give you details. I tried and it was wiped from my computer. So to generalise; One finds one's Self, soul, entering into the womb of the Great Mother like a sperm impregnating her. Some time later, years, one is crucified in Jesus, dies (in the flesh or not? (see St. Paul's letters for this.) descends into hell, ascends into heaven. Here they are given their mission in life and are reborn into this world. This is an experience more real than the reality of the physical universe. Quantum physics is just now opening the door of understanding of this wider universe and our place in it as co-creators with the divine. This clue you can have.

[a gnostic]

it is important that we understand what the word "virgin" for Mary, mother of Jesus, means. We know she wasn't "married", that is obvious from the story, but was she really a virgin? And how do we know that?
In the case of Isis it is very different. She was not a human, but a goddess. She impregnated herself, something Mary couldn't do.
What the book says is that the idea of Isis was transfered to Mary in an attempt to make Jesus a Son of God. I think that observation is correct because of the Isis cult in Rome. The problem with that idea is that Jesus was a semi-god, hardly a jewish concept, but very Greek indeed. And of course the Greek influence during the time Jesus is supposed to have walked the earth was immense. Also Egypt was a Greek province, from the time of Prolemy I, who was turned into the God Serapis, who was also called "the saviour", to Cleopatra. It all points to adaptation.
The problem with adaptation is that the true meaning of the original (the Isis story) might already have been forgotten, or misinterpreted by people outside Egypt. So Isis WAS a virgin, but Mary was an unmarried woman who gave birth to a baby. However, the baby was regarded as a semi-god - which means his father is a god - and in the male society this story came to be, a god would of course not have a baby from a woman who was NOT a virgin. It is still very important in Islam and we all know about virginity repair!!
The step from Isis to Mary is an easy step considering the very popular Isis cult and christians who were eager to win men AND women to their side.
But is it correct to transfer the (hidden?) meaning of the Isis-Horus story to the Mary-Jesus story?

Hello Drdalet, thank you for joining the conversation, and welcome to Booktalk. Your post assumes that Jesus and Mary were real people. There is no evidence whatsoever for this theory, except long tradition of church teaching. By contrast, the hypothesis that Mary and Jesus were invented in order to incarnate the Egyptian myth of Isis and Horus provides a far more elegant explanation for the origin of Christianity.

The Christian story makes no sense except in its Egyptian historical context, as another mutation of an old myth. But this mutation, seeking to give the myth the power to confront Rome through the device of incarnation, unleashed forces that its inventors could hardly have imagined, as the church took the doctrine of incarnation as a tool of monolithic secular power.

As pointed out in the title of this thread, Isis was known as Mery, which meant beloved. Christianity made her myth more powerful in one sense by incarnating it as Mary, except that this stratagem backfired once the stupidity of popular mythmaking took over, the Egyptian roots were forgotten and Mary was converted into a patriarchal idol. The natural backstory remains hidden in the daily revival of life as the sun (Jesus) is born at dawn (the virginal Isis)

The recognition that Jesus and Mary were not real is such a shock to true believers that they reject it out of hand as destructive to their idolatry. And yet, examining the source material provides a series of circumstantial indicators that Christianity is entirely fictional. For a start, the whole Jesus story is entirely absent from the contemporary historical record, with the only flimsy supposed references far too late, too obscure or too obviously fraudulent.

This is very bizarre for such a supposedly prominent series of events and should raise immediate suspicions of fraud. Even the supposition that the Jesus story was embroidered from actual history makes little sense, in view of the continuity with Egyptian precedent. The fanatical efforts of Christians to destroy 'unorthodox' material raises further big questions about their motives, suggesting they wanted to conceal evidence of their fraud.

So your questions that I have bolded above about the virginity of Mary are non-questions, because they presuppose that Mary was a real person, when in fact she was not. Murdock mentions Plutarch's critique of evemerism, in which he commented to the effect that dragging gods down to earth as literal individuals was an act of impiety and disrespect, an idolatrous failure to respect eternal mythic identity. The blessed virgin mary is nothing but an idol, a totemic fetish who serves purely secular purposes of church power, including the suppression of female identity.

Debating the virginity of Mary is exactly the same as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a foolish scholastic game that refuses to examine its assumptions critically. The only way the debate makes sense is to explore how the myth of Mary emerged by cultural evolution from earlier precedents such as Isis, and then to explore the cultural meaning of Isis, especially how the Egyptians regarded their gods as forces of nature.

Respectfully, I must disagree with you. You appear to be missing some important information. I would suggest you find a copy of Dr. Morton Smith's book, "Jesus the Magician." Smith gives information about Jesus' family background. The most probable candidate for his physical father. What happened to Mary after she was divorced. Ever wonder why Joseph disappears in the Bible after Jesus goes to the temple for his Bar Mitzvah? The answer to that is also in Smith's book. He also gave me the first clue into Jesus' sojourn into Egypt and his schooling in the Egyptian mysteries. This start is how I ended up here. Try to find a first edition. The second edition was published after Smith's death and some adjustments were made. Not enough to interfere with Smith's main points. The church was furious with him for revealing all he did and tried to discredit him. Just as they tried to stop the translation of "The Nag Hammadi Library" Gnostic scriptures. I trust this will help you in your future spiritual growth.

[tat tvam asi]

co-creators with the divine. This clue you can have.

Does my screen name ring a bell with you?

[drdalet]

Your post assumes that Jesus and Mary were real people.

Hello Robert. Thanks for your response, but no, I don't assume anything. I am reacting to claims other people make. So I agree with what you say next:

There is no evidence whatsoever for this theory, except long tradition of church teaching. By contrast, the hypothesis that Mary and Jesus were invented in order to incarnate the Egyptian myth of Isis and Horus provides a far more elegant explanation for the origin of Christianity.

However, that is also a claim. I don't have to choose which one is a better explanation, but I take both claims and deal with it. And you should see my reaction in that light.
Where you speak of mutation, I speak of adaptation. But WHY the Isis story? And the answer comes from Roman history and the Isis cult exactly during the time the Jesus story is promoted.

Then you continue by explaining about Mery, but I know that very well, and not just from the the book Christ in Egypt. Mary is probably the most common name there is and it's origin is very old. Why I like Christ in Egypt is because it covers about any theory I ever read about it and more.

I have many discussions about the Bible with believers and it is very tiresome. As you point out, there are people who believe these stories are actually true and it is never sufficient to come with a theory that, for them, is just as unbelievable as for us the Jesus story is. So if I discuss with them I always take their claims as true and debunk them.

The point of what I said is that the Isis story could have been adopted without the meaning behind it. Even if a person we call Jesus existed and even if he had a mother called Mary. So EVEN IF they were real persons, it is still rediculous. The Isis story could very well be adopted without the ideas behind it. But perhaps I have been discussing too much with believers
So your response is logical:

Debating the virginity of Mary is exactly the same as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a foolish scholastic game that refuses to examine its assumptions critically. The only way the debate makes sense is to explore how the myth of Mary emerged by cultural evolution from earlier precedents such as Isis, and then to explore the cultural meaning of Isis, especially how the Egyptians regarded their gods as forces of nature.

I agree.

[tat tvam asi]

"...at the last, when [Osiris's] cult disappeared before the religion of the Man Christ, the Egytians who embraced Christianity found that the moral system of the old cult and that of the new religon were so much alike, that they transferred their allegiance from Osiris to Jesus of Nazareth without difficulty. Moreover, Isis and the child Horus were straightway identified with Mary the Virgin and her Son, 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 Egyptian Christian Fathers gave to the Virgin the title 'Theotokos,' or 'Mother of God,' forgetting, apparently, that it was an exact translation of neter mut, a very old and common title of Isis."
Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge, The Gods of Egypt (I, xv-xvi)

This is jumping ahead a bit and we skipped over several chapters, but the chapter on Isis opens up very nicely with several interesting quotes following behind the above. She goes into dating the Isis cult to the 4th or 5th century BCE. Isis was given the epithet of "Meri," or "Mery." Much documentation of this fact takes place, which is in contrast to the lame apologetic claims that no such epithet was ever given to Isis. Once again, the walnut is cracked with a sledge hammer but that's just what had to be done to get this point across.

p.135

The accepted opinion concerning the origin of the name Mary is that it comes from the Hebrew "Mariam," which means "rebellion." However, as is frequently the case within the field of etymology, this point is debatable, since the New Testament Mary certainly does not epitomize "rebellion," in reality representing utter submission to God, and the epithet "beloved" would be much more suitable, especially in consideration of our discussion of "superiority" and "subordination."

Murdock then goes into how Mary was thought to be taken from the OT story of Moses and Aaron's sister "Mariam", a name which seems to have it's roots in Egypt anyways. All very interesting. It gets even more interesting as chapter goes on to the mystical Sofia content and then the astrotheology of Isis-Meri which I'll pull quotes from as we move along...

[a gnostic]

co-creators with the divine. This clue you can have.

Does my screen name ring a bell with you?

Not really. Please enlighten me. If need be I will give you my email.

[a gnostic]

co-creators with the divine. This clue you can have.

Does my screen name ring a bell with you?

Not really. Please enlighten me. If need be I will give you my email.

On second thought Tat is a student of Hermies. Asi I believe is one spelling for the Egyptian form of Isis. Tvam I have on clue.

[a gnostic]

co-creators with the divine. This clue you can have.

Does my screen name ring a bell with you?

He's baaaaak. Okay I think I solved the mystery you presented to me. Some one here called you Robert. So combining that and tat tvam asi in a search I came up with "Robert Pirsig author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." If that is you consider me impressed. Your book sold more than mine is so you are now far richer than I, congratulations.