Talk:Horus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

If anyone

If anyone who reads this is an expert, or even amateur enthusiast of Egyptian mythology, please feel free to add information, and most especially to clarify the differences between the multiple kinds of Horuses. My source doesn't do a very good job of explaining in what way they are the same idea and my likening them to the Christian Trinity is essentially an educated guess. All I have is a stub under "Horus" and dozens of other entries that claim to be "another name" for Horus with widely varying descriptions. If you know more than me, be bold in updating this page. User:Tokerboy

Hey, Ive been reading up on aleister crowley recently and came across many things such as the illuminatis, freemasons and etc. is there any connection between the eye of horus and the them? Im a little confused. - Jill

What about Horus versus Seth?

Ok, it kind of has that. But a lot is is missing. Like the reason Horus was fighting Seth (Seth killed his father, Osiris). Also, the bit where Horus is about to kill Seth but Isis, his mother and Seth's sister stops him. Oh, and after the only event in the section, Horus and Seth have a boat race. Horus makes his out of wood, and Seth makes is out of stone. Seth's boat sinks, so Horus becomes Pharaoh. So someone should FIX THIS!!! Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I fixed it...well sorta...feel free to fix it further and I think further citations for that would be useful as well. 79.233.72.250 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• how about doing it yourself? everybody is free and welcome to make constructive edits to wiki... if you think something is missing -> add it yourself. regards SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did. The boat race is now included. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It says in one place that Set is the god of upper egypt, and Horus of lower egypt, but in another paragraph ot says the opposite. Which is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.127.236 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sons of Ra: Horus, Anubis....?

Hello! I read many times, both in books and even more in the internet (and in Wikipedia, too) about Anubis originally being the fourth son of Ra. But, beside some vague information about Horus originally having been the son of Ra once, it`s never *clearly* mentioned who the other sons were! And yet whenever it was, never in a clear, exact tone, but quite vague and whitout a clear number. But whenever Anubis is mentioned this way, ALWAYS as the third or fourth! Meaning there had to have been a first and second, possibly even thir, other son? But who? Horus is also mentioned as a son of Ra. Seth possibly too? Besides, I "only" know daughters... Somebody know more? Might sound quite idealistic, but what would be nice would be some "... first, .... second, ... third" kinda thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.15.163 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Horus = hours?

The following video talks about how the word hours comes from Horus. And a lot of other things about Egyptian mythology. Can anyone here verify that this is completely fake or actually meaningful? Since it is not on any of the pages in wikipedia that I can find. In my opinion, it seems like total shit of the bull. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf4Q Xilliah (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Our word 'hour' comes from the Greek hora meaning season and/or division of the day. It would nice to see a link with Egyptian words such as 'hrw' meaning day and so on but as far as I can see this a speculative and unproven. The name Horus means 'distant or far off one' and is a reference to his nature as a sky god i.e. he is not a sun god - although he was fused with Ra as RaHarakhti and so on. The video is a mess and manages to destroy its own basic and reasonable premise that there are parallels between some classical and pre-classical myths and stories about Jesus, by poor scholarship. For instance the term 'sun set' does not come from the god Set overcoming Horus and so on. However the idea that the winter solstice and thus Christmas as being significant is completely true and so is probably the borrowing of this date by Christians for the birth date of Jesus. Some of this amalgamation of pagan myth could have happened when Christianity was taken up by the Roman empire as its official religion. Much of Christian theology is also derived from Greek philosophy e.g. Plato, so the idea that Christian thought is somehow unique and pure is similarly wrong. I have seen convincing arguments that Christian thought came from Mahayana Buddhism which reached the Middle East via the Silk Route - so who knows. But as you say this video is largely bovine excrement. Apepch7 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Whats more, the Egyptian word for Horus isn't even Horus. Its Heru and the vowel sounds are mostly guess work. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

God of life?

I always thought that Horus was a god of life. Is this true or not?

I have tried to do my best. ~~~~

NO, Isis, the wife of Osiris and mother of Horus is the god of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.81.71 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wicca

I have heard there is a connection between Horus and Wiccan beliefs. Is this true or a fabrication? If so, surely this should be documented here? AKismet 20:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard or read that anywhere. It's a fabrication IMO. UserDoe 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)UserDoe

There is no relation to Wicca. However there are links to paganism seeing as Khemitians(Egyptian pagans) are pagan. Eternalsiara 22:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be that it is the vandalism? Gnostics (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there proof that there is no connection? I have been told of one, and I think to deny people's beliefs one has to show proof that they are wrong. Mwahcysl (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The connection of Wicca and Horus is, as mentioned above, through Paganism. There are Wiccans, I'm certain that worship Horus as their deity, but if you know much about Wicca, it's an unrestrained Pagan religion that would allow for the worship of the deity of your choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.159.22 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Eye of Horus

My sources are potentially quite unreliable, but I have for years been under the impression that it was Horus' left eye that represented the moon, and his right eye was the sun. Is this incorrect?

You're quite right about the eyes, Sun and Moon; this is a well-known Ancient Egyptian myth. Actually, this myth or one quite close to it appears in several mythologies.

Urhixidur 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just confused, because the article said Horus' right eye was the moon. I imagine it would tend to vary from story to story, but I guess it's kind of bugging me a little...

Its the eye which became the Eye of Horus that was the sun, youll have to check that article - the drawing of it is very stylistic so its easy to see whether its the left or right eye.

As for the wiccan connection, if it does exist then it will most likely be down to the modern founder of wiccan belief - Gerald Gardner or Aleister Crowley --Victim of signature fascism 20:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the authors of this article cited the sources from which the content was drawn. --Sapphire Wyvern 10:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Virgin birth is not immaculate

see : Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This article refers to the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, Mother of Jesus. For the doctrine of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ, see Incarnation (Christianity) and Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine). The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic dogma that asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the stain of original sin at the time of her own conception. Specifically, the dogma says she was not afflicted by the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, but was instead filled with grace by God, and furthermore lived a life completely free from sin. It is commonly confused with the doctrine of the incarnation and virgin birth, though the two deal with separate subjects." --193.56.241.75 08:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on how he was conceived. His mother had sex with Osiris after he died. She had ot make a fake penis to do so. You can read it in a book. VegSXEBassist 21:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a well accepted theory. --4.233.113.41 (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Anonymous

Source validity

My apologies if I mess anything up - I'm still learning how to use this. I question the validity of the "Naked Truth" video in that particular section of this article. Unless I'm mistaken, the video implies that early humans were contemporaries with dinosaurs and puts forth a suspicious etymology of the word "amen," which contradicts Wikipedia's amen article. I will look for better sources, but perhaps the author of that edit can defend the video in question. I prefer not to edit the article myself until I get more comfortable using Wikipedia and can provide replacement sources. Mld 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)mld

Can anyone clarify further any references....

Hi, The validity of the beginning of the article is not only questionable but rather absurd. Horus is NOT the son or even the suspected son of Hathor. He is the son o Osiris on his wife Isis after his death. Some of the confusion here can be attributed to Hathor being associated with Nephysis, who was Isis' twin sister, but there is no question of his being the son os Isis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalsiara (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actiually, Horus was considered be the son of Ra and Hathor in the early history of Egypt, becoming the son of Osiris and Isis in later times. Personaly, I use the latter mythology. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible opinion that should be removed?

'Serious scholars do not question the historicity of Jesus Christ'? That sounds like an opinion to me... 216.86.104.31 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The "citation neeeded" tag is on there, and that whole section has problems. We'll sort it out eventually. --King Bee 12:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In the end, there is historical evidence that a Jew named Jesus of Nazereth actually lived and existed [...]

Is this a joke ? Who wrote this piece of POV ? Plus, it has nothing to do here. This section is only comparing the similitudes between Horus and Jesus. Its not about the historicity of Jesus. If nobody objects, I will delete it later. -- Squallgreg 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Jesus and Horus section needs to be rewritten to make Horus the subject, and remove any dubious claims about other gods. I will make a start --Herne nz 08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is reveiling that this section contains the only citations, yet is marked as unreliable. Every christian scholar should be able to set their faith aside for intellectual debate, without feeling that faith is threatened.

Additions to Origin and family relations

http://touregypt.net/godsofegypt/horus.htm

I have always been under the impression that Ra was the original father of Horus and then it was changed to Osiris, not the other way around. Also has anyone heard of the origin of the idea of horus, "The worship of Horus was brought from the outside by neighboring tribes who invaded and then settled into Egypt. He was their god of war, but was quickly absorbed into the state religion, first as a son of Ra, then changing to become the son of Osiris." This is how i have always understood it; however I only have the above source to validate it. Let me know if you think it should be added or if it has merit.

Horus has always been and will likely always be the son of Isis and Osiris. The family history is a little confusing though. But here it is. Isis and Nephysis were twin sisters. Osiris and Set were brothers. Isis married Osiris. Nephysis married Set. One day Nephysis got the bright idea to dress up as her sister and sleep with Osiris. This consequently led to Set murdering and dismembering Osiris. Isis (helped by Nephysis) then gathered up the peices and reconstituted Osiris who came back to life for a short time, during that time Horus was conceived on Isis. Some confusion about the origins came from Nephysis being identified with both Hathor(in her form of the destroyer) and the Hindu Kali(also a goddess of destruction). However if one is true to the original Khemitian religion (yours truly) this is the oldest lore of the birth of Horus

Eternalsiara 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I was wondering... Why is Horus so important to the egyptians and their religion?--67.81.70.107 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer as soon as posible!! (^_^)

This are only my suggestions, but this can be true: there is Slovian God Chorus (spelled Horus) [also named: Chors, Choros, Chrs], he is God of Moon. Maybe this is the same god and it would answer your question: the Moon is very important in every culture. Of course I don't have any proof that it have any connections, but it is quite interesting. AC4 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He was really important to all of them he was a cult figure. VegSXEBassist 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Horus is the god of flight, such as birds of feather, a scaley creature. I don't know that this can be verified, but, Athena once desired to know what it was like to see down upon the Earth from the Heavens and a raven came from Persia and told her to look into his eyes and that she would "know." The raven then pecked Her eyes out.216.215.40.1 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether you would believe it or not, the Sky has already been ripped from the Earth and there has been a repair job. Nuclear explosions do such things (not the repair job). Either Horus is attempting to reinstate his position or is attempting to usurp another, whether justly or not. Merely air (and possibly only as high as a bird can fly) and not outerspace, unless he is a scavenger; then he "would" be from outerspace (although he may have once left the Earth when it became a ruins). It comes to mind that he may be on a mission to destroy a woman Eternally at the request of a family. By the way, Egypt is said by a Silesian to have been the first to detonate a nuclear device on the Earth, I suppose in the Sahara Desert. They got in "BIG TROUBLE," why not the same for the USA? 216.215.40.1 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• ;) except the part about destroying women (wrong) :P . 208.64.140.248 01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Horus once told Set(h) that he must kill Osiris so that . . . . Horus in another Being may have been a "bloodhound" upon a woman's existence. 216.215.40.65 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment on the fact that Ra and Horus are seperate entities and that the "eye" bit on Horus does not sit too well with Ra, the (G)god residing in the Sun? Does Horus claim to control the Sun and Moon? That would not sit too well with Ra. Ra doesn't want me to tell you much about him. Gnostics 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Horus is important because he was the king of pharaohs. In fact, pharaohs were sometimes said to be him. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is this information coming from?

There aren't any reference to ancient texts at all. Where does our information about Horus come from.

One text I can think of is the Egyptian Book of the Dead Ty27 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with Jesus

From the comments above, I get the impression that there was a much bigger section comparing Horus and Jesus earlier on. I think it would be good to have one. I stumbled over this page searching for something completely different. If the comparison on that page is valid to some degree, it should be mentioned. If it is not, I assume that other pages anyhow refer to it, so it would be worth it to contradict it. Mlewan 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparisons between Jesus & Horus are completely false, it's just an internet myth. --TotesBoats 04:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If Jesus beeing a recycled Horus is an internetmyth, I'd like to see some references that busts it, rather than just deleting the statements. I did not read "Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever", but that is what people say they get their J vs H info. --83.249.118.113 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see more on this. If the comparisons are accurate and true, this ought to be front page news. KRhodesian 05:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)KRhodesian

I concur. If there's reasons to bust this internet myth, then let's do it. It's important to make a note of this misconception, if it is a misconception.

213.123.174.203 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well where to start? That book, "Book of Vivifying the Soul Forever" doesn't seem to actually exist. Here's a thread from some skeptical web site and none of them could find it: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130986 I searched Google books and all of the results I got where books from the 1840's-1860's. Mostly by Gerald Massey and I don't need to say anything more about him. Google always gives you old books since they're in the public domain but whenever that happens, it's always around the turn of the century, not 50 years before it. It's not a mistranslation of the Book of the Dead, since the literal translation is "utterances of emergence during daytime". Regarding the "virgin birth" is Richard Carrier of all people, refuting Acharya S's usual stupidity. http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html Also, people seem to bend the idea of a "virgin birth" to whatever the hell they want to make it, be it Mithra being born from a rock.Adonis being born from a tree who used to be a woman, who definetly wasn't a virgin. Anyway, Horus was born from Isis having sex with Osiris's dead body. There was no resurrection because Horus never died. There is a story where as a child, Horus was bitten by a snake and Isis freaked out because she thought he was going to die. Thoth came down from heaven and made the posion ineffective. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a comparison of Horus and Jesus:http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-myth.html76.67.99.211 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I am not a Christian. I did some research and pretty much figured out that this and the other claims of the similarity to Jesus are more than myths, most of them are out right lies or trying to deceive or mislead intentionally. Like Mythra was born from a rock, this was called a virgin birth by Zeitgeist but it never said what it was; Mythra was just listed as having a virgin birth rather than saying how he was born. Other claims like Attis being resurrected was misleading, Attis came back to life as a tree. I did a whole paper on this in class and found out it's a bunch of lies. We should start a page on it I will have things back up what I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VegSXEBassist (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can add a link to Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#Egypt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.16.106 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

 I think jesus is actually jaseas.  which would mean son of the light of the mother and father

Jews deal with the light to. I mean christ was imaculately concived, but then again christ was born unto the house of david, the house of the jewish kings. even the bible says god had more than one sun in genasis near the story of the tower of babel. some thing about it was way back in the days when the sons of god married the daughters of man. The jews are supposed to keep record of spiritual events and history priests they are really jew might be an inaproprieat word and christ was born unto them and walks amongs the people just as he did john, andrew, peter, paul, and the rest.

What?! Is someone cuckoing us? "Jaseas", and "there is no god Horus"? Now: we on wikipedia have no objection against writing about things that don't exist. F.ex. Donald Duck. However: Donald Duck is notable and citable, there are outside sources fit for citing. So we write about Horus whether he is real or not, and if there are many reliable sources mentioning "Jaseas", then we'll write about that too. Please provide us with reliable outside sources! Said: Rursus ☻ 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Most "reliable outside sources" on these pages I have noticed come from people that publish there own books. And I am not going to waste my time doing that. Nice name though I am impressed with your "passion" for the page I can see your vested interest in the page. I guess maybe I can leave my name then my name is egypt, my name is hamin at ra hamin otep sety, my name is Repasy. And I have better things to do than publish a book in the "hope" that a library of congress number will validate my "opinions".--204.118.241.234 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how/if to include this in the article, but David Icke 6minute video compares Horus to Jesus (and Mithra) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsndEjU1TdY 199.214.24.41 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say David Icke is known mainly for theories that are definitely of the fringe variety. Madridrealy (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

check out grahm hancock on youtube wild stuff.--204.118.241.234 (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add the Horus/Jesus parallels in the Religulous article. Atleast there the christian nutjobs can't censor it /Wolfenstein (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This atheist is mainly concered with sources (definitely not Youtube or Icke!) and things like appropriateness for the particular article and possibly WP:UNDUE. dougweller (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a bit of emotion involved with this, maybe it's not worth the trouble... I've found it's become a debate rathar than a fact-finding issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.144.254 (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The Zeitgeist Movie says that Horizon is a contraction of Horus-is-risen. Is there anything in this or are they talking crap?

Straussian 14:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they're talking crap. OED says: ORIGIN late Middle English : via Old French from late Latin horizon, from Greek horizōn (kuklos) ‘limiting (circle).’

I have a different question about the etymology. Wiki seems to have two conflicting statements: 1) Horus is recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphs as ḥr.w and is reconstructed to have been pronounced *Ḥāru, meaning "Falcon". 2) Since he was god of the sky, Horus became depicted as a falcon, or as a falcon-headed man, leading to Horus' name, (in Egyptian, Heru), which meant The distant one. Bueller 007 10:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The oreaz ledgend is based around the bird also not just the falcon. The egyptians are very anthropamorphic. The association of a common link between animal and egyptian. Some people have skulls and noses that resemble one or another kind of bird or animal. modern day archealogist have for some reason fixated about the falcon, probbible due to their own feelings of similarity however the falcon is not the only reviered bird in egypt or the oreaz mystic.

---

I have been lead to belive that Ha is associatibe with bird, sky or flight. Haru would be a falcon, and haro would be a "generic" collective of {Bird,sky, flight}-{Rea}as in Ra-{light of the moon} as in O.--207.14.131.183 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

I'm not trying to be picky here, but the grammar and diction of this article are completely off. The opening paragraph repeats itself insanely, particularly in the use of "important". We all understand that Horus is important, but I would suggest a re-write to make this article a bit more like an encyclopedia than a 10th grader's oral report. 64.246.144.52 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)MaytrixInk

Not only is the grammar poor the content is unconvincing and the article needs a complete edit. Apepch7 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Main illustration

The article has a picture of Horus with no caption - it looks like it might be the Papyrus of Ani - anyone know - if so could you add a title to the pic?Apepch7 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is the topmost picture in the article to which you refer, this is indeed from the Papyrus of Ani. However, the caption now present incorrectly states that it is of Horus and Isis. It is in fact Horus and Ani, with Horus presenting Ani to Osiris after the weighing of Ani's heart. 76.103.209.31 07:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsticency in article

Hey, I was just reading this, and i realized that near the top, the article calls Horus the patron god of lower egypt, and set of upper. Further down, however, it switches the two. Not sure which is true, but if anyone knows, they should change that --Estrill5766 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Horus was traditionally Lower Egypt and Set Upper because their respective places of worship (Chemmis and Kom Ombos) but in late period because of the association of the Hykssos with Set, this god was sometimes placed in the delta where Avaris their capital was. The article is full of misleading and inaccurate information so this particular contradiction is nothing special.Apepch7 14:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change it then if no one minds. --Estrill5766 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of djeba (justification for delete)

The DbA "perch" is not the same as Dba "finger" (though both can be confused via the non-technical transcription djeba). The A and a are two different phonemes, and the hieroglyphic writing of the words is distinct.Â

DbAwty or DbAwti is not a plural. DbAwtyw with the plural ending .w would be a plural; the previous w is not the plural ending. The author of the article may be confused by the fact that for feminine plurals, the plural w precedes the feminine t. -wty can be found in words such as wpwty/ipwty "messenger," aHAwty "warrior" (later "male"), kAwty "workman." (advice received via glyphdoctors)Apepch7 14:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whore or Horus

I changed this: By Coptic times, the name became Whore. to read By Coptic times, the name became Horus. I may be wrong, but that doesn't look right with "Whore". Is it supposed to be Horus? --Minatonkka 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to be "Hor" rather than "Whore" but I don't have the specific reference. Horus is the greek version, but I'll tag as [citation needed] until someone can find a ref for that specific fact. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• It used to be Hōr not Whore. This was old vandalism conducted by Skullduggery Pleasent see diff. I therefore removed the fact tag. Regards User Doe _☻T ^☼C 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Horus is more a Kin to Chaos than to the Sun and Moon

Gnostics (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then find some credible sources that state that and cite them. KV(Talk) 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate Entities

If anyone has the time, (I have many other articles I'm building up), could someone distinguish between Horus the Elder and Horus the Younger? 19:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, they are not separate entities. Horus the Elder and Horus the Younger are just two separations for different age stages or abilities of the same Entity. 79.233.121.11 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually planning on doing that tonight. I was going to use Budge mainly, but if you have links to those articles, feel free to post it on my talk page. KV(Talk) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need for protection.

Since the publication of a film called "Zeitgeist", which includes certain claims about Horus, I have seen this article change, with the inclusion of data (specially about Horus being the son of a virgin) which would coincide with the claims of the movie. For example, the text under the image of the Temple of Luxor was different here than it was in the article about Ra. It is true that the Sun god Ra was son of a virgin goddess, and it is perfectly right to mention that Horus and Ra were fused at a certain point in the mythology. But in the text, the sentence is: "The form of Ra at this point was Ra-Amun, who was becoming identified as Horus", with Horus bolded, to stress his presence in the illustration. First problem: the text about this picture in the Horus article is way too different from the text in the article about Ra. It is incoherent. Second problem: there is no source to the image. We all can see the image pretty well, but we don't know from which source the hyerogliphycs were translated. It is sourced as "Temple of Luxor", but who translated the words? Shouldn't those claims be backed by a source? All this makes me think this page is possibly going to be edited constantly, because when someone wants to check out the data provided by "Zeitgeist", the very first thing they do is check out about Horus, so the very first thing that is going to be re-written is this article. As an extremely heated debate on the subject is being held now, I would seriously consider to protect the aticle. But I would like to read other people's opinions about this. Sparrowhawke 20:21, 22 April 2008.

I just got to this page from the film Religulous and think that a protected section mentioning at least the controversy over Jesus similarities is warranted. Deleting the entire section, even in eventually found to me an internet myth (or meta-myth), is unbalanced.121.91.123.208 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Horus god of the sun?

Isn'tRa god of the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid xx (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In egypt, sun worship was considered very important. Every god/dess was somehow connected to the sun, some more and some less obviously. Horus was a sky, but also sun, god, same is e.g. true for Hathor. But there is hardly a deity not somehow connected to sun worship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.15.163 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In late Egyptian times, Ra became merged with Horus in meaning, and the resulting deity (Re-Horakhty) became god of the sky, earth, underworld, and sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.204.207 (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Does anyone know how to fix the awful formatting in this article to cut out some of those big gaps? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

in Regards tot he Parrallels to Jesus, and the removal of the same.

The parallels between Jesus and Horus should be removed. They serve no real purpose, in that they do not teach anyone about Horus. Instead, the real focus is on how Jesus is similar to Horus, and as such this information would be better suited in the Jesus Myth article, not here, where people come to learn of the god Horus. Further, it should also be noted that the information contained in the parallels section comes from sources not considered reputable by Scholars, and is not viewed as credible by anyone in the relevant fields. I therefore ask that the removal of this section be permitted to stand, as the Parallels are clearly placed in the article by those who simply want to include them for their own purposes, which usually ends up being to support an author or movie, such as Acharya S’s Christ Conspiracy or Zeitgeist, or more recently Religulous. In the end, its manly added to this article to bolster their credibility, and by extension to undermine the Christian Faith by showing that Horus, who predated Jesus by many thousands of Years, indeed shared Similarities with Jesus in how he lived his life. It therefore cannot truly be said to be information about Horus. Worse, the information is demonstrateably not true, and one can discredit the similarities by simply reading any text on Horus. Indeed, the Parallels between Jesus and Horus aren’t even supported by the rest of the article in Wikipedia. TO summarise, the information is not educational and is not about Horus and serves no real purpose in this article beyond shoring up certain projects that seek to undermine Christianity by lending them Credibility since the information can now be Pseudo-Confirmed by a visit to Wikipedia.

Incidentally, this is what is hoped for, and those who defend the parallels by saying they are sourced, and the article makes clear that they are the words of specific Historians need to re-evaluate their opinions. Most who come here will not think this though and will simply accept what the article says, and at the very least will arrive at the conclusion that the statements in the parallels section enjoys broad support in Academia, which it doesn’t.

So Wikipeida will be used to Mislead others into thinking the theory linking Jesus to Horus has Scholarly support, whilst serving to lend credibility to dubious materials and serving the agenda of those seeking only to discredit Christianity by mean of discrediting its historical foundations, so in this way Wikipedia will be used to promote misinformation to further someone else’s propaganda and agenda.

I therefore removed the Parallels segment, and ask that it remain removed. It serves no end to tell these fringe theories. it’s not like the article on the Apollo Moon landing includes information abut the landing never occurring, all of that is in a separate article, and we have an article on the Jesus Myth theory. No need to place irrelevant information here, information not even about Horus, is there?

- Skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.44 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The section already ends with W. Ward Gasque criticising the claims of Harpur and Massey. If several notable historians and theologians have debated this issue over the years, it's relevant to Horus and seems worthy enough of inclusion in the article. It would be misleading to omit it, and to expect people to find such material by reading other articles.

Please try to assume good faith before accusing material of being "clearly placed in the article by those who simply want to include them for their own purposes [usually] to support an author or movie". --McGeddon (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

McGeddon, you would be quiet right that, if Notable Historians and Theologians debated the links between Jesus and Horus, then it would be worthy of inclusion, and indeed, more should be added to the article to explore those similarities, if this where true. Indeed, if notable Historians and Theologians have debated this over the years, it would behoove us to include in the article the specific claims made about Horus, that those parallels are drawn from, citing the original sources from Ancient Egypt. This is where you run into your first snare, in that we do not include the Virgin Birth of Horus, because no actual Egyptian text recounts it. We similarly do not include his teaching in the Temple at age 12, due to this episodes absence from known Egyptian record. His collecting 12 Disciples to follow him is similarly not found, neither is his Sermon on the Mound, or his raising El-Azar-us from the dead. We do not mention in the Wikipedia article’s main section, that has nothing to do with Jesus, his Crucifixion, and resurrection, or the fact that Horus’s death on the Cross atoned for the sins of the world; We mention not how his Resurrection promises us Eternal life. We make no mention of the above because no text on Horus besides those linking him to Jesus make those claims. You will find no Myth supportive of these claims, no wall relief’s recount it, no Papyrus Scrolls record it, no statues to it, nothing. Which brings me to the other main problem. If notable Historians and Theologians have debated this issue over the years then it is worthy of inclusion, but this is not the case. No notable Historian or Theologian has made these similarities.

Gerald Massey was neither a Historian nor a Theologian, and despite being described as an Egyptologist, he was never educate din the field and never formally studied it, nor did he classify himself as such. He was a poet, writer of articles, and a member of Madam Blavatsky’s Theosophist society, and it is his membership in the Theosophist society that lead him to seek the parallels to begin with. Massey’s work has never been accepted as credible amongst Egyptologists, either in the 19th and early 20th century when he lived, or now. He is simply not regarded as an authority on the topic, and is known only to those seeking esoteric and obscure works of mysticism.

Alvin Boyd Khun’s principle source was Gerald Massey, and despite an actual education in College with some background in studies, he was never considered an expert in the field, or even a member of the field. He too belonged to the Theosophist society, and his principle source for his ideas was Massey.

He wrote nothing original and did no original research, and instead furthered Massey line of thinking to include some of his own ideas, unsupported by any actual research by Egyptologists outside of a few new snippets here and there he got from newspapers or magazines which he cherry picked to selectively display in support of his ideas.

Tom Harpur is not a notable theologian, either. He is an Ordained Anglican Priest and educated, but not with an advanced degree. I believe he holds nothing higher than a Masters. He also lectured at a University, but nothing substantial has come of it. He also has an interest in Theosophy, and his ideas are remarkably absent from Academic journals. You won’t find his name in History magazine much less in Cambridge or Harvard press.

He is not notable at all, except that he is a Popular figure amongst a small legion of people who enjoy the Christ Myth theory. He is, after all, the author of “The Pagan Christ’, a book that I will ask you to look at on Amazon, and note that it was not published by a University press.

He is largely unknown in the fields of Historical study or Theology.

No notable theologian or Historian makes the claim that Jesus didn’t exist, and no notable Historian or Theologian claims parallels between Jesus and Horus.

The similarities found in the Parallels section aren’t even supported by the rest of Wikipedias article about Horus, and no site speaks of the elements of the Horus story that mirror those of Jesus apart from those which promote the Christ Myth theory.

You won’t find any other Encyclopaedia, online or off, that mentions these parallels. You will find no Egypt logical source for the Horus story mentioning these things either.

The similarities between Jesus and Horus only exist when Horus is being compared to Jesus, and are never mentioned apart from Jesus.

How can any reasonable person assume they are thus relevant to this article? In fact, how can we “Assume good faith” when there is obvious evidence that the only reason this information is included it to support the Christ Myth theory in order to undermine Christianity?

We have seen Acharya S, Zeitgeist, and Religulous mentioned as reasons they are included. These sources are obviously Anti-Christian, and deeply biased sources that lack any pretence of objectivity. Must I “Assume good faith” when someone watches Bill Mahers “Religulous” and then comes here, and see’s the parallels aren’t mentioned, then decided to add them to shore up the claims made therein? Or when the same happens with Zeitgeist? Or after reading “The Christ Conspiracy”? Are we to assume the devotees of these media offerings simply want to include the information because they think it is relevant to ones study of Horus? We have seen the term “Christian Assholes” used when the segment is removed, with the claim that the Christians don’t want the truth out about Horus being the general gist of the comment. Are we to assume good faith there when they do not allow such an assumption to be made without rejecting the plain evidence before ones face? Simply put, the information about the parallels between Jesus and Horus stem from sources that lack credibility in the Academic world, and the claims they make are self contained and have no support from the outside world. They are adhered to by those who desire to believe them, for reasons other than Academic study, and those how want to believe Jesus was simply a version of Horus retold as a Jewish Rabbi. Those who want to include this information often want to give legitimacy to a film or book they have recently experienced and seeing the parallels not present simply elect to add them, in order to shore up the claims of the film or book. This is obvious from their own admissions here. Such as “I saw this in Religulous”, or “This was in Zeitgeist”. There is no logical reason to include the parallels. They do not serve to tell the reader about Horus, and the parallels are only made to support the Christ Myth theory. They do not teach us anything at all about Horus. They aren’t even principle focused on Horus. The point is that Jesus was a retold version of Horus so thus Christianity is a plagerisation of earlier myths. This means, Jesus is the focus of the Parallel section, not Horus. The parallel section doesn’t advance ones understanding of the Horus myth. It provides the reader with no information about Horus they can use. It simply exists to discredit Christianity. How is that useful? How does one gain insight into the myth of Horus by these parallels? One doesn’t, and this is the point in removal of the text. -SKills.

Harpur and Massey both meet WP:RS for their respective fields, being published, and this means we're able to quote them. If you think they'd benefit from being presented in a different context, then feel free to quote some other sources that have written specifically about the authors, but don't just delete it. The Loch Ness Monster article contains statements from sources that were later discredited, but we still quote them.

The section teaches the reader about a modern, recurring interpretation of the Horus myth, and I feel this is of encyclopaedic interest. --McGeddon (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So you'll just use anything published as a reliable source? By this logic why not mention that Eve was originally a pagan goddess, but Adam was just an allegory for humanity in general. Barbara Walker said this in her book "The Womens Encyclopedia of Myths And Secrets". (Male characters are never gods for Walker.) Never mind that Walker is a raving loon and her ideas have no currency, she's published and this is all that counts, right? I'm sorry but simply getting published isn't sufficient reason to assume a source is reliable. That said, the objections I raise still remain. The Parallels section is not truly about Horus, but is about Jesus, and properly belongs in the Christ Myth article. You learn nothing about Horus within it, other than how Horus is recoreded in older stories than is Jesus and how Jesus's life followed the pattern of Horus, according to the authors cited. Worse, the main text of the article above the parallel lack any of the parallels that are supposedly evident to these "Notable Historians and Theologians". The only reason to place this information in the Horus article is to support the claims that Jesus was based on Horus, a claim that is not hotly debated, but is largely ignored by academia as a very old joke. It not only serves no end to explaining who Horus was, being chiefly interested in Jesus, but it also lends to the impression that the claims that Jesus was base don Horus is taken seriosuly in Academia, which it isn't.

-Skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.20 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Horus's Birthday si now listed as December 25th int he Article. No citation is given, but maybe we can Cite Kuhn or Massey? i;m sorry but the Parallel section has emboldened the Myther groups and now they feel invited to implement more changes to the article, Which will add further credebility tot he Jesus Myth theory and support the claims of their soruces. In reality, the posters of the information simply want it in the article so when others look at the Horus page on Wikipedia after seeing Religulosu or Zeitgiest, they will find support for the claims in those movies, or others, or books, that in reality no Credible Historian would verify. Horus wasn't Born on December 25th, by the way.

-SKills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.109 (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is precedent in other sections of Wikipedia in terms of comparative religion most notably Isis#Parallels_in_Catholicism_and_Orthodoxy. And it appears that thoughts on there being parallels between the Horus myth and Christianity go back at least to the 19th century (see: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=DjzzRdwRKKIC&dq=horus+and+christianity&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=-CsSP_yegy&sig=UxZl1TQFwmAl13Ppjo4S-WBx60o&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1).

Your statement that Tom Harpur is not a "notable theologian" is nonsense, as a casual glance at his entry in Wikipedia attests. He may not hold your views on Christianity but to discredit a published, respected author, professor and Rhodes scholar who has been teaching in his field since the 1960s is laughable. I think any unbiased observer would concede this point. Certainly there are some authors whose works are soundly rejected by the academic community (the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky come to mind) but Tom Harpur is clearly not in that league.

I agree that anything lengthy on this sub-topic probably deserves to be placed into a separate article of its own, perhaps within the Jesus myth article that you mention. But that information should then be moved and not deleted outright.

I also agree that whatever information is added ought to be cited. However you have deleted cited references (along with un-cited ones which may or may not be spurious) and have not provided any reliable sources of your own to counter the arguments with. Deletion is not a valid counter-argument.

My interest is more in the Egyptian myth itself than in the comparative religious aspects, but am trying to provide a rational argument that addresses some of the points you have raised. Straightforward deletion of cited content by respected authors normally constitutes vandalism though I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in this case. Captmondo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying I only reject Tom Harpur because he doens't hold the views on Christianity I do is an easy dismissal of what I have to say, but its not a fact. I woudl not disparage Atheists like Bart Ehrman or Agnostics like E.P. Sanders, who clealry wouldn't hold the views you presume I hold. However, Harpur is not a Respected theologian. He holds no advanced degrees in any theological school of thought, and his book "Pagan CHrist" was not released by an Academic press, nor did it undergo peer review. His views arne't beign rejected because I am biased, they are beign rejected because the whole of Mainstream academia rejects them as laughable. IUf you want to dispaage me and claim that any unbiased observer woudl see him as credible and that Im only rejecing him because I am soem sort of devout Fundamentlaist CHristian who only wants my viewss known, you are very much mistaken. And I can prove it, as all you need to do is call any Egyptological department at a Major University and try Harpurs theories on them. Or, theology and Philosophy departments. His ideas are based enturly on discredited soruces, and he isn't a Scholar in any real sence of the word. SHoudl I give you Phone numebrs to variosu Universities and their departments? I will if asked. The bottom line is this, if you read any book on Egyptology, Egyptian Mythology, or Egyptian history, you will find no support for the concept sint the artilce as it now stands. Horus was not born on December 25th in any known Egyptian Myth. THis reference is included because people want to support the Jesus-Horus connection to give it legitimacy via Wikipedia. The Parrallels between Jesus and Horus likewise do not exist. Do you want sources? OK, how about every known Egyptian text in existance? DO I need to list all of them, and post links to them? I will shwo you the link to Sacred Texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/index.htm There is nothign on this site about Horus beign Born on December 25th, or Born of a Virign, and all it lists are hte actual soruces for Egyptian mythology. The truth is, peopel who watched the film "Zeitgiest" or else wached Bill Mahers "Religulous" or read on some website or books like "The CHrist Conspiracy" want the parrallels between Jesus and Horus to be real, and want others to beelive them. They come to WIkipedia and insert this information into the Article in ordr to then have a valid external source for their claims, such as Horus beign Born on December 25th. Its got nothign to do with the Real Myths at all. The only reason the Parrallels section is included in the Wikipedia article is to bolster the claim that Horus was the priginal story from which Jeuss is based, and the only reason the mention of his Birthday on December 25th is made is because they want to further illustrate that connection to thus "Prove" the Christ Myth theory has a valid point. There is no credibility to the claims, though. Its all Bunk. -SKills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.99 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:3RR before deleting this section again - you have already made the same change four times in 24 hours, against the consensus of other editors. --McGeddon (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Then take it up with Arbitration. However, I am merely correcting Vandalism. The segment that includes the “fact” that Horus’s Birthday shifted depending on calendars, and notes that he was born in some calendars on December 25th, for instance, is not supported by anything other than a link to a largely defunct website anyone could have put up there. The rest I’ve noted before. The parallel section serves no purpose. It doesn’t teach the reader anything about Horus. Its mainly interested in how Jesus copied Horus. Worse, its rooted in fringe nonsense. Neon of the information in the Parallel segment is legitimate, and it only exists to bolster the Christ Myth claims, so that those who watch Zeitgeist or Religulous or read the Christ Conspiracy will be able to cite Wikipeida as validation for their claims. The same is true of the other reference. What next? Allow someone to insert the notion that in some versions fo the Myth Horus was born of a Virgin? The simple fact is, there is no contestation amongst real Scholarship about this topic, its soundly rejected. Yes, we have Tom Harpur, but its not true to say that any unbiased observer would conclude this man was a respected author and professor when in reality he was simply a lecturer and writes fluffy new age articles for the Toronto Star. You mentioned a criticism of him by someone, did you read that review? I did, and would be quiet willing to post it in full to support my contention that Harpur is not taken seriously. That and the lack of mention of him in academic journals. No, the parallels section is worthless, and needs to be removed as it only promotes falsehoods. I don’t say this because it goes against my beliefs, I say this because the Myth of Horus should be properly presented, which its not whilst we are told he was, in some myths, Born on December 25th and we compare him to Jesus. I have posted a link to Sacred Texts. This link should be read. I will post others still if you like. Try as you might, you won’t find the parallels taken seriously.

-SKills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.99 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC) On www.sacred-texts.com, linked to by SKills above and about which he says that "There is nothign on this site about Horus beign Born on December 25th, or Born of a Virign, and all it lists are hte actual soruces for Egyptian mythology. . .," which (on that site, at least) may be true; however, I did a simple search for and quickly found the following: http://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/lca/lca11.htm: "Similarly, the Virgin Mary with the holy Child in her arms can be traced by linear descent from the early Christian Church at Alexandria up through the later Egyptian times to Isis with the infant Horus, and thence to the constellation Virgo shining in the sky. In the representation of the Zodiac in the Temple of Denderah (in Egypt) the figure of Virgo is annotated by a smaller figure of Isis with Horus in her arms; and the Roman church fixed the celebration of Mary's assumption into glory at the very date (15th August) of the said constellation's disappearance from sight in the blaze of the solar rays, and her birth on the date (8th Sep.) of the same constellation's reappearance." And on the same page: "Jesus himself--so entangled is the worship of this greatest man with the earlier cults--is purported 1 to have been born like the other sungods, Bacchus, Apollo, Osiris, on the 25th day of December. . . ."

and further on http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/isi/isi02.htm: "Horus is the Sun, which confers heat and light to our earth, and rises in the East. . . ." And on the same page: 'In his second essay, "The Conjecture in conclusion," he deals with e, Omega, and Ff at the end of the Lower Region. e is Horus newly born, or Osiris refound, which comes to the same thing, he is swaddled up with feet together, and drawn of small size, hence the Winter Solstice.' And on the samee page: "The Romans had their feast of the New Sun, or the Finding of Osiris, on December 25th, which the Egyptians kept as a feast on the 11th day of Tybi, or January 6th." It seems clear that these sources are comfortable identifying Horus as a sun deity born on or around the winter solstice, and that they identify his mother Isis with Mary. The associations are close enough that a section in the article dealing with the influence of Horus' birth and life on Christianity is certainly called for, especially considering that the facts are becoming more commonly known, and the belief is becoming more influential. The section should observe NPV, but it definitely has a place. Zenjazzygeek (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting very hard to read. I'm not sure what attention we should pay to Edward Carpenter (not an Egyptologist) or a spurious translation of a possible 1st century AD Roman tablet (but probably a forgery[1] with nonsense hieroglyphics. And are the 'facts becoming more commonly known'? The 'facts' are in dispute, and what is the evidence for 'becoming more influential'? Why is this tablet even being mentioned? It is evidence for what? dougweller (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of citing sources from www.sacred-texts.com is that the claim was made by SKills that "There is nothign on this site about Horus beign Born on December 25th, or Born of a Virign, and all it lists are hte actual soruces for Egyptian mythology. . .," while there are articles that make exactly those statements. For example, on http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta10.htm, which is an article by Manly P. Hall, it is stated that 'Isis of Sais [is] famous for the inscription concerning her which appeared on the front of her temple in that city: "I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; no mortal Man hath ever me unveiled."' And, on that page, he states that "She was known as the goddess with ten thousand appellations and was metamorphosed by Christianity into the Virgin Mary, for Isis, although she gave birth to all living things--chief among them the Sun--still remained a virgin, according to the legendary accounts." So clearly there is discussion of her being a virgin, and therefore giving Horus a virgin-birth. As for 'becoming more influential,' the case of Horus, his virgin birth, and his similarities to Jesus have been cited to 2 recent wide-release movies: Zeitgeist, and Religulous. Also, the facts about Isis' similarity to the Virgin Mary, and about Horus' similarities to Jesus, have been discussed in recent books about the history of Christianity, and are growing in importance to many folks, like myself, who want to understand the origins and meanings of the mythology of Christ. Zenjazzygeek (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the sacred texts site has an made up translation of an untranslatable possibly forged document, and Manly Hall, neither of which are useful in the article. And a movie only released on Google and a documentary. That it is important to you is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article, and I see no evidence that its importance is growing. I'm still not convinced this has a place other than maybe 2 sentences at the most in an article on Horus. Maybe in the Jesus myth article, where it now has a brief mention, sure. dougweller (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that, when I said there was nothing about the Dcember 25th Birthdate or Virgin Birth, I meant spacifically on the Egyptology section.

Sacred Texts is an archive of any text used as a Sacred text by people, and as such houses much information of differing qualities. For instance, it houses Historie Regum Brittanai by Geoffrey of Monmouth. I doubt anyone would see this as a work of accurate history, but it is still presented.

Sacred texts can be used for religious or historical study, but when discussing the Horus Myth, we should focus on Egyptian sources, not later sources with clear agendas who often had no expertise in Egyptian mythology and who often had their works ignored or flatly rejected.

Thus, I'm not referring to the Wicca section of Sacred Texts to find information about the gods, for instance, as Wicca is a much later religion. I'd also not use the "Sacred sexuality" section which stores the work of 19th and early 20th century writers who often didn't know a thing about actual studies.

If you are interested in the origins of Christianity, then I will make two suggestions. The first is, read about Christianity and not Anceint Egyptian Mythology.

The second is, read books by real Scholars on the topic like N.T. Wright or Bart Ehrman. You won't learn anything at all about the Origins of Christianity from watching Zeitgeist or reading authors who had no background in historical or theological study.

That said, this article is about Horus. It is not about Jesus, and it is not about the Jesus Myth theory. There is no reason to include a section on the Parallels between Jesus and Horus, as they do not further anyones awareness of Horus, and are based on material that is Dubious at best.

It adds nothing and cannot be backed by genuine, credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.129 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, though I didn't come to this article to ask for help on researching Christ myths; I came to this article to find out more about links between Horus and Jesus that I heard about in recent books and movies. I was hoping to find an intelligent article about Horus mythology that would either clarify the connection or explain the context of recent 'artificial' linkings between them. I found neither, because the article has been edited either because a) the sources were not scholarly (a valid reason) or b) those reading the article felt that their personal faith was being insulted. My point in commenting on this article is that there is a great deal of interest in the history of Christ and religion, and more recently specific links between Christ and Horus have been claimed, so a section in this article discussing them would be perfectly appropriate, in a neutral point of view. About my interest in the Horus-Jesus connection: "That it is important to you is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article, and I see no evidence that its importance is growing." (Dougweller, above): the point of Wikipedia, I thought, was for folks with information to provide it to folks with an interest. So, my interest is precisely relevant to the article, and my interest, as part of the millions of Wikipedia users, is the reason Wikipedia exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenjazzygeek (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your interest in the link between th Horus Myth and the "Christian Mythology" perhaps clouds your judgment.

I say this because most people who come to learn more about the link between Horus and Jesus, and who use terms like "Christian Mythology" tend to simply want to cement their view about how Christianity originated from Earlier pagan myths and to flesh the idea out. This tends to especially be true of those who claim an interest.

I realise this isn't assuming good faith, but its difficult to when you've faced this sort of thing before.

The truth is, there is no link between Horus and Jesus. Everything you have heard in Zeitgeist about it, and later in Religulous, is based on rubbish, that is completely unsupported by actual primary sources.

If you go to your local library and read any book on Egyptian mythology they have, you will not find mention of the specific similarities, like the virgin Birth of Horus, or his Crucifixion. Nothing about it is mentioned in any mythology book you care to look at. These parallels are only found in books that draw a direct link between Jesus and Horus. In other words, Christ Myther books. Thats the only place you will find the similarities discussed.

You won't find it in anything else, from the popular works of Victoria Ions to Oxfords Egyptological volumes. Each and every damning similarity used to show the link simply vanishes into thin air when you compare the claims to the Myth of Horus as presented by Scholarly works. IT becomes a Phantom you pursue into the shadows that grow long and dark, but lack real substance.

This Phantom can be pursued even to the original sources themselves, and translations of all can be found if you look, most online as they are now public domain. Here even there is only emptiness to greet the claims.

The Parallels between Jesus and Horus simply do not exist. If you want to study the origins of Christianity, then study it from the writings of the Church Fathers, the Bible (Yes I know how dreadful, using the Bible to study the History of Christianity), and modern Scholars who are recognized in the fields. Not all of whom are Christians themselves, and none affording a place at the table for consideration of the Christ Myth idea in general, much less the parallels suggested by you for inclusion regarding how Jesus and Horus are similar.

The truth is, there is no link between Jesus and Horus, and the Parallels in Zeitgeist and Religulous, and The Christ Conspiracy, and The Pagan Christs, and others, are nonexistent when you do real studies. In fact, they originate with 19th century Poet and Theosophist Gerald Massey, himself not an Egyptologist, and whose ideas are rejected and ignored by real Egyptologists.

If you want to study the Origins of Christianity, as I said earlier, study it from real sources. If you want to study the links between Christianity and Horus, there is nothing to study.

-SKills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.129 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that Christianity draws upon earlier religions/mythology, I have no doubt about that myself. But this stuff doesn't belong here, except perhaps a sentence with a link to Jesus as a myth or whereever is most appropriate. And Wikipedia depends upon reliable sources as defined at WP:RS, not 'people with information' from any source. dougweller (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, from Judaism :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are too weak to justify including that material in this article. Not comfortable however with the latest removal, by ZAROVE (talk · contribs), who was making his first edit in 2 1/2 years to do this, with a very questionable edit summary, and perhaps was verging on violating a topic ban imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE. Looie496 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read through this section of the discussion and it appears there are not reliable sources supporting the jesus/horus link. I do not though understand why any mention of the link in the article would be unjustified support of the christ myth theory. A mention of the lack of evidence, movies like zeitgeist being unsupported or even a link to the christ myth theory page could help people looking for that information. The link seems notable not because its valid, but that it appears in the media and can come up in conversation.Quiteahat (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Including the supposed Horus/Jesus connection, even while refuting it, would give undue weight to an idea promoted by a very small group of people, none of whom are scholars on the subject. Fringe theories like this may be mentioned as such in Wikipedia, but only if they meet notability requirements. As the fringe guideline states, "if a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." As far as I know, the claims of connections between Horus and Jesus have remained beneath the notice of Egyptologists, so they do not merit inclusion in the article, in any form. A. Parrot (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources on the Horus/Jesus connection

Despite my searching, I cannot find any reliable sources on the Horus/Jesus connection either in support of or disproving the connection. Since the above discussions on the subject have quickly devolved in an argument with neither side providing much evidence to support their claims, I propose that this section serves as a list of reliable sources on the subject.

Keep in mind Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. The sources should be from notable experts in Egyptology (i.e. have college degrees) and not just from a blog, website or even a film or published book. An academic paper from an expert published in a notable academic journal would be ideal.

Please include a link to your source and an explanation of what the source says and how it conforms to Wikipedia reliability standards. Do not post any questionable sources. Offline sources, despite their reliability, cannot be easily verified by other Wikipedia editors and should avoided if possible. Any comments on a specific source should be indented under that source. Please do not post any unsourced comments or information; there are other sections of the talk page for such comments. On a similar note, do not post comments on whether a section on the Horus/Jesus connection belongs in the Horus article; again, there are other sections of the talk page for such comments. Thank you. --Marcus Brute (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that "Offline sources" (meaning books), should be avoided? If that is Wikipedia policy, could you please point me to a reference? Am not so much interested in the Jesus/Horus debate than checking if this is new policy. Captmondo (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between sources that were not originally published online (many books and academic articles are reproduced online) and offline sources, which cannot be found online in any form. While offline sources are proper subject for references in articles, the purposes of this section (which is in a talk page, not an article) is to produce reliable sources that can be checked quickly and easily by other users in an effort to come to some consensus. A source that cannot be found online and therefore not easily checked will only serve to hinder this goal.--Marcus Brute (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done my children... the church is pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.25.68 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I came in here after seeing Religilous. I just wanted to see whether the story was true or whether it was debunked as Wikipedia usually does so well. Either way would have been cool. I had no prejudices either way. However when I see the discussion above that has totally removed any mention -- even to debunk it, I now more than ever wonder whether it really does have a grain of truth. Americasroof (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This website might help. It seems to reference reliable sources. I didn't look into it very thoroughly, so I hope someone will! Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious Tolerance is far from unbiased and that site uses one source from book that uses 3 sources with one being a book written almost 200 years ago and the other ones being around 100 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly edit war on Horus's mother

There has been a rather ridiculous edit war with various editors changing his mother's name from Isis to Hathor to vice versa. Silly because both Isis and Hathor have mention as his mother, and there is even a dispute as to rather the Horus whose mother is Isis is the same Horus whose mother is Hathor. Like most of our Egyptian mythology articles, this desperately needs some decent references (and tourEgypt is great for tourists, but not for this article!). Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

=It may be a matter of interspatial and/or intertemporal chronology that Horus may have more than one Mother. You, yourself could have more than one Mother. Should be mention of both? Could ask Chronus.216.215.40.65 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

I came to this article due to watching Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197), which at about 18 minutes in makes comparisons between Jesus and Horus. None of this seems to be currently mentioned in the article. I think there should at least be reference to the fact that comparisons between Jesus and Horus have been made, should there not? --Rebroad (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not mentioned because actual biblical scholars and egyptologists know the entire Zeitgeist video to be complete and utter fabrications in everything. To mention the video at all would be to give patently false concepts WP:UNDUE weight using a source that most certainly does not fit WP:RS. Notice that even this article on Horus contradicts many of the claims made in that "documentary". The book of the dead quite explicitly numbers Horus's disciples at 4, not 12, for one example of many of the patent falsehood and deception in the Zeitgeist video.Farsight001 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think many people will check information about Horus x Jesus here in wikipedia, so the myth should be commented and dismissed, if this is the case.

User Rhalah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalah (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the connections to Jesus!

This parallels-to-Jesus conflict is ridiculous. I am not a Christian, so I am not objecting to this for religious reasons; I am objecting based on my knowledge of Egyptian beliefs. I have never seen any reputable source on Egyptian mythology say that Isis was a virgin or that Horus was crucified or started a ministry (!). The claim that he was born on December 25 is almost meaningless—the Egyptian calendar had no leap years, and fell out of sync with the real solar year, so you could claim that Horus was born on any day of the year depending on what year it was. However, his mythical birthday was on one of the five epagomenal days at the end of the year, and as the Egyptian new year was theoretically tied to the heliacal rising of Sirius, Horus' birthday, if tied to any actual time of year, would have been in July or August. Finally, while Egyptian texts do mention "followers of Horus", this is a reference to the predynastic kings of Upper Egypt, for whom he may have been a patron god. The only connection between the two figures that I know of is the possible influence of the cult of Isis on the cult of the Virgin Mary—and if you really want to write about that, you should use reliable sources and include it as a small part of Isis' article. Inserting these unreliable theories into the Horus article is merely an attempt to discredit Christianity without any regard for facts. A. Parrot (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good sources need to be distinguished from bad sources

If anyone is going to be dealing with this Jesus=Horus thing, you need to learn to know what's a respectable source and what's not. Just because someone writes a book and gets it published does not mean they are reliable. It doesn't matter if your book cites sources either. If they use sources that are so old that you can't be sure of if they're up to date (Harpur using Higgins who died 175 years ago) then that's a problem too. You're going to need to go compare Higgins to someone more recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in any way saying that this Higgins character is speaking any truth what so ever, but what I can't understand is why a ~200 year old writing would in any way be less interesting then let's say a.. ~2000 or ~4000 year old one..?

A 2,000 to 4,000 year old source is generally first hand, from an ancient egyptian, or in the case of Herodotus, from a greek who knew egyptians. These are termed primary sources. In the intervening years since Higgins, our understanding of the archaeology of the period has progressed immensely. New texts have been found, new artefacts, and our understanding has improved. You cannot write about egypt without citing primary sources in the archaeological record. If you do, then you wind up as wildly wrong as Zeitgeist did. I'm still trying to understand on what planet being impregnated by a cadaver is considered "virgin birth". Here's a tip, if you want to know about Horus. Throw out Zeitgeist. It gets nothing correct. --Paul Anderson (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ra-Horakhty

The Ancient Egyptian Religion template contains a link to "Ra-Horakhty" beside the link to "Ra". It redirected me here but this article does not say what the connection is. ~ R.T.G 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can see now that Ra-Horakhty is the name given to Ra and Horus in a unified form. There is a brief mention of it on the Ra article where his various comined forms are listed. I think the Ra-Horakhty redirect should point there or else point to a section on the Ra-Horakhty topic here. I am sure there are a lot of experts on that stuff around here! ~ R.T.G 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Graves

The part in the "Saviour god" segment that mentions Christian Graves with Egyptian god amulets and statues bothers me. I know, I know, I'll be accused of being a fundie who can't stand my religion being shown to have pagan connections by real scholarship, but considering the lengths people went to to make Horus a Virgin Born Saviour or to include the completely fabricated list of similarities noted by "Some authors", I have to wonder just how much truth there is to this strange claim. I mean, Christians where fierce Monotheists even then, so why would they be buried with Bas statues or Amulets depicting Bas? They didn't worship other gods at all.

And who is Shed? Even the Wikipedia article on Shed has nothing, and other than sites that reference the same book, I can find no actual evidence the Egyptians ever worshiped a god named Shed.

I just think this claim is another attempt to smuggle in similarities between Horus and Jesus, or to link Christianity to Egyptian pagan practices.

I'd ask that the claims be verified somehow by someone not in love with the idea that the two are somehow linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.172 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All the material is from notable egyptologists. As mentioned on the Shed talk page, it might be an idea to check out the sources and if you still feel there is a problem then come back to the talk page and discuss it. Taam (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be doing that. But in the mean time I'd prefer to leave the page without the reference. Besides, as I mentioned earlier to you, the reference to Christian Graves is meaningless in this article, except to tie Christianity to Horus in some way. People tried that earlier with the idea that Horus was a Virgin Born Saviour and was Born on December 25th, and that some authors notes similarities.

It just seems to me that people want there to be a link, and want others to see that link.

But tell me honestly, what actual value does the reference to Christian Graves, even if true, actually have in an article about Horus? It tells the reader nothing at all about who Horus was, and seems to exist solely to link Christianity to ancient Egypt.

If this is the case, I see no reason to continue the reference.

This will be especially true if I find it to be bogus.

64.24.236.172 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The material is probably true, but as 64.24.236.172 points out, it is not relevant. This is an attempt to sneak in more hogwash by means of unsupported synthesis. Leave it out. A. Parrot (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The material deleted is from a work by Erik Hornung whose work I haven't yet seen being described as hogwash. The material is viewable on google book[2] p. 75. Why is it that I and others who delete Horus-Christ myths material from the article, that doesn't pass academic scrutiny, cannot include material that is of interest for those who seek to find out cultural interplay with the spread of Christianity and is from academic sources? This seems inconsistent. Taam (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that this is an article on Horus, not on how Christians incorporated Egyptian practices at some point.

The mention of Christianity in this article, which is not about Christianity, is not valid. Christians never worshiped Horus, and said nothing of him in their works about their faith.

It serves no logical purpose in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.97 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinions but the point is a very reliable academic source supports the material you have deleted. I assume you checked the source material to verify that what was in the article is a true reflection of what the source said. To me you are behaving like the Horus-Christ mythers who want to push unverifiable material to support a copy-cat religion hypothesis, only in this case you are intent on removing genuine information that is of scholarly interest because it offends your faith. I encounter people with strong faith who are not put out with this kind of information because it's true and it doesn't undermine their essential beliefs and they realise that early Christianity, like all religions, didn't emerge from an air tight bubble. Horus is one of the most important A.E deities in all his forms and the cultural interplay between the old and new religions is worthy of comment if it is supported by sound scholarship - as it is in this case. Taam (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Taam here. The source seems to be reliable, and there is an intersting connection that relates directly to Horus. I think the material should be included. Mintrick (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what is the greater significance of this information? Most likely it is evidence of the persistence of polytheistic Egyptian beliefs into the Christian era, and of a period where the two belief systems coexisted. But the disputed sentence doesn't say that, and I don't know what point Hornung was trying to make by bringing this up. Stating the bare fact that Christian artifacts were found with amulets of Shed, without drawing any conclusions about what this meant, might make it seem to the layman that there was some kind of influence of Horus/Shed upon Jesus, although no reliable sources I have seen state any such thing. I apologize to Taam, as I didn't realize that it was he who added the material, and assumed that it was one of the Horus-was-Jesus fringe theorists trying to imply that. However, as he has the relevant book, I think he should explain what broader significance this fact has. A. Parrot (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ack, I read so fast I only absorb half of what I'm looking at. All right, I've seen the link and read the pages. But I still think it's better to write the larger conclusions Hornung draws about influences on Christianity, and not the specific discovery of some artifacts. A. Parrot (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Mintrick (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the absence of a context might leave the section pregnant with possibilities for those who have read Horus-Christ myth material from non-scholarly sources - I haven't. Taam (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it still doesn't have anything to do with Horus, and I haven t had a chance to check the sources.

I'm still waiting for both actual verification that the information is true, and the relevance later Christian burials would have in an article describing Horus.

I still see no actual reason for the mention to be in the article at all, other than to bolster a non-existant connection.

64.24.236.97 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To recap: the material does mention Shed-Horus. The link given above lets you read the section in Google books. It's scholarly - from a very notable source who is a specialist in his field. Taam (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, the problems I have with it remain.

1: It doesn't tell us anything about Horus. it tells us of alleged Christians connections to Horus that no one can verify, as argued presumably by a single source.

Its really not the general scholarly consensus that Christians worshiped Horus or utilised his image in any way. Even if they id use images such as the amulets, we have nothing connecting them to actual worship of Horus or their beliefs regarding him. The segment is more on Christians than on anything else.

2: It will mislead the reader into thinking there is at least some truth to the Horus-Jesus connection thats so popular these days.

There isn't.

So I'm afraid I must disagree.

64.24.236.23 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. Maybe it's because you have read a lot of the copy-cat religion ideas that you are particularly sensitive to such information being included. On the other hand maybe because I haven't there is a lack of sensitivity on my part. You have to remember that other than for a very brief period there was nothing in 3,000 years of a highly spiritual culture that sought to enforce a single conception of the divine at the theological level or in popular expressions of belief - you might call it a tendency to syncretism or such like. What would be amazing would be the lack of such evidence, not the presence of it, as Christianity spread.

The issue of burial practice is one area that such an overlap did occur, i.e mummification (such an important part of traditional beliefs) continued to be used by early Christians in Egypt until St. Anthony stopped it. A common belief amongst scholars is that the images of baby Horus with his mother was influential in the depictions, which continue today, of baby Jesus and his mother (see article on Isis). Another is the depictions of divine judgement on death having influenced later Christian representations of Hell (see that article for more information).

Erik Hornung is by no means the only scholar who has commented on such influences. None of this by itself supports the idea that Christianity was a copy-cat religion made up by a group sitting around a table. What it does show is the humanity of the people who did not have an intolerance for other conceptions of the divine and who could see certain resonances between the new emerging religion and existing images/concepts that were already familiar to them. This is why Egypt in particular was considered such a fertile land for the new religion. People who have been brought up to view anything "pagan" as being of the devil may have trouble coming to terms with this but maybe the solution is to learn more about A.E and how those people lived, perhaps dispelling prejudices in the process, rather than expurgate the article of such material. Taam (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User 75.93.187.32 2 August 2009

A new editor had some material deleted today because of lack of refs[3]. These have now been supplied - thank you. However I would like to check the following:

1. The virgin birth ascribed to Isis. I don't have Erik Hornungs book but on checking with google books on the page mentioned in the ref I can't see it but perhaps this is a different edition. Could the editor please put here a direct quotation from the passage. 2. Resurrection of Horus after 3 days and 12 Apostles. None of the works I have written by egyptologists mention this and since the book appears not to have been written by a specialist in this field it needs additional scholarly support.

Could the person who is trying to make these good faith edits respond to these points before reverting again. Taam (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well despite a request to discuss the matter the same editor reverted the edits anyway[4] and added the following clarification "Aside from nightly battles of darkness being conquered by light, and vice versa, other examples, such as the death of Horus (as Osiris (Geraldine Pinch, Egyption Mythology; pg 83)) leading to his resurection after three days...". On looking at Geraldine Pinch's book at the page ref given there is no mention of this so Farsight001 reversion of the material today seems justified since other issues remain outstanding (see above) that do not support the inclusion of the material as it stands. May I ask if user 75.93.187.32. is perhaps taking this material from an on-line source? It might explain why the citations are not checking out at present. Taam (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Testicle?

I never heard the story reported in the article and the font of the information is at least dubious. Has anyone any more trustworthy information than "Theology WebSite"? --Dia^ (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I added a reference there. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)