The Truth of the Times 8 - Will the Real Horus Please Stand Up?

[MisterCabana]

I'm sorry dude, but you seem to be missing the point in zeitgeist movies. The few points you extract from them are totally irrelevant since the movement does not intend to be religious or to debate religion in any instance. In case you didn't notice, they only show similarities in all of them throughout history and how MODERN church are assembling them together to manipulate the masses. Unfortunately, you religious people insist to debate upon un-existent facts in what you call faith.

[VinnfordSansbury]

@MisterCabana No apology needed. Zeitgeist had 3 points: Jesus is a myth, 9/11 is a myth, and the financial system is broken. This episode of the first part of the series focuses on following the academic citations and showing people where Peter Joseph got his information from and which information was passed along accurately or skewed like a telephone game. No religiousity is required. PJ, by wit or lack of, has assembled facts and conjectured myths of his own to skew the historical record.

[MisterCabana]

@VinnfordSansbury I don't see how you came to the conclusion PJ "conjectured myths of his own". As for the "academic citations", I would like to ask if you, on the other hand, have any concrete undeniable EVIDENCE of everything the academy tells you.

[Angelatopia]

Find someone who can translate the ancient writings. Or a book which has done so. Rather than these books from Various authors. You are finding flaws in the workings of the maker of this video, but that doesn't necessarily debunk anything. It shows an eye for flaws, and lots of research of cited materials. I'm looking for the truth, not human error. Thanks.

[flyboy1c]

One of my favorites so far... PLEASE keep em coming, you're doing awesome on there's.

[VinnfordSansbury]

Is there a typed version of this somewhere? The handwriting is really hard to make out, especially since its in German (not my best language honestly). Otherwise I'm going to have to set this project aside for a while because I have a test coming up and as much as I'd like to dedicate more time to this pursuit, I already used up a lot of it salvaging episode 8 from the grave. (What I really need is a new editor)

[VinnfordSansbury]

So a quick word search of Herodotus didn't connect the solstice to Horus at all. In fact, I didn't find mention of Horus once. Going back to Wilkinson, he must have blended this information alongside the mysteries that Herodotus speaks of instead of quoting them directly. Back to page 79 on the good copy he quotes Plutarch about the solstice. FINALLY we find that is it HARPOCRATES who is brought forth around the solstice. NOT Horus. This according to Plutarch at least.

[VinnfordSansbury]

Plutarch lived from around 46 - 120 AD. This means he is talking about a figure (harpocrats) who was conjured up 400 years before his time, borrowed from Shed, who was borrowed from Horus 900 years earlier who existed in mythology since 3000 BC. Plutarch does not present any evidence beyond his own word for the solstice birth and futhermore already treats Horus and Harpocrates as seperate entities in his writings!

[VinnfordSansbury]

I understand the concept, but the point herein is this: The companion book you cited, misquotes Wilkinson's words. He says this theory exists and was formed AFTER the original Egyptian history. So far we still haven't gotten to the source of this information, which seems to be traced to someone called, "Minot" translated by "Taylor". Basically, the search continues while archeology stands defiant. It shouldn't be hard to find though since Wilkinson gives an actual quote. :)

[VinnfordSansbury]

Darn my smudgy copy! Its actually Herodotus being quoted here, a historian who lived in the 5th century BC, long after Horus' mythology had already been in place. Still, might as well see where this goes.

[VinnfordSansbury]

Ancient Egyptians Volume III says up front a few pages back:

"Having noticed the metaphysical character of Osiris, I proceed

to examine some of the allegories founded upon his (word smudged)

history ; though, as already stated, I believe them to be for the

most part mere fanciful speculations, forming no part of their

religious belief, but rather designed to amuse the ignorant and

satisfy the people with a plausible story."

Sorry, but the companion book cites this out of context

[VinnfordSansbury]

Hey that would be awesome! :D Thanks!

[VinnfordSansbury]

Wow, that saves me an insane amount of time. I will check this out as soon as I get some time. :)

[XSC3]

I wasn't aware that "Theosophists" were now considered legitimate scholars. As far as I've seen Theosophy was merely a forum for modern speculation and syncretism ABOUT ancient religions for use by moderns, not actual credible scholarship about what the ancients practiced (regardless of its applicability or lack thereof to the modern world).

[XSC3]

I was under the impression the "Theosophical Essays" was a commentary (by a modern day occultist) on Plutarch's work, not a work by Plutarch himself. Theosophy as a system did not exist in Plutarch's time, the term was invented in the 19th century.

[dudekin]

Nice one.

I have a video that may help you slightly regarding the whole 'Meri' thing. You're probably best of reading the transcript.

[VinnfordSansbury]

I'll check it out. Thanks dude.

[VinnfordSansbury]

I think you've got the right approach. You seem to have dug up a lot of information and formatted it quite professionally, but I encourage you to dig back to primary sources and fact check all the timelines.

[VinnfordSansbury]

I don't know who told you that but you're wrong:

Translation:

INTRODUCTION.

The copies of the astronomical inscriptions, which are high on the Egyptian monuments for all ages to behold, are accessible to this day and make up the first volume of the Thesaurus inscriptionum aegyptiacarum.

Basically, its a huge collection of all sorts of astronomical hieroglyphs. Did you read this book? (Can you even read German?)

[VinnfordSansbury]

What page?

[VinnfordSansbury]

I'm sure that subject will come up in another video.

[VinnfordSansbury]

I really don't think that needs to be explained so much as proven or disproven on an individual basis. This is after all Peter Joseph's main argument at this point in the film, that Jesus is based on ideas borrowed from all sorts of gods. Even in those ancient times there was great debate over which gods were copy-cats or coincidentally similar.

[VinnfordSansbury]

I would hope that the man's knowledge of the Egyptian hieoroglyphs rather than his personal faith would be the decisive factor in weather or not the statement is accurate. You'd also be surprised how many sources I've come across that are citations leading to something completely different or theoretical stuff that is suddenly cited as fact. Its a good find though! This might be a solid lead. I'm hopeful as he is tauted as father of British Egyptology. Though ep 3 had a similar situation...

[VinnfordSansbury]

Oh, apologies. Scrolling down further I did find the citation. However, I'm not sure why you didn't just lead me straight to the source, aside from the fact that it doesn't seem to be available online. Have you read "Ancient Egyptians" by Wilkinson to confirm the citation for this information is accurate?

[VinnfordSansbury]

And where did they get this information from? See, there is no citation to any source. Without this you can't follow their train of information back to the station. We do have Egyptian writings from that time which contradict this statement that Horus was born on December 25th and so far I haven't found archeological evidence to the contrary.

[VinnfordSansbury]

Pg. 199 in the edition I found online is actually a photograph. Could you be more specific as to perhaps what the sentence you are pointing to actually says?

[VinnfordSansbury]

Nope. I'll add it to my reading list though.

[VinnfordSansbury]

I didn't find it in Plutarch. If you want to point it out though I'd appreciate it. I will look in to this Egypt Revisited book you speak of too.

[XSC3]

"Theosophy" was a new religious movement developed by Madam Helena Blavatsky, Henry Olcott, and William Judge in 1875. They freely borrowed bits and pieces of lore (from what was known at the time in America & Europe) of Nordic religions, the religions of India & Gnosticism to try to "recover" ancient wisdom (purportedly, though fame & the profit motive also probably figured in) as an appealing substitute for traditional religion (Christianity)

[XSC3]

it's the same sort of stuff done by secret fraternities like the Masons. They give themselves a glorified and vaguely spiritual sounding past tying themselves to ancient wisemen, legendary figures and events and colorful characters. Even groups like the Boy Scouts do it. it should not be confused with actual ancient history to try to prove some deep dark "truth"

[XSC3]

The trouble with the theosophical model was that it was not so much concerned with historical accuracy or interpreting the material in its original context. Rather it was like a cafeteria style buffet of spiritual beliefs, practices and philosophies, all mixed together with the elite sensibilities of the time. it's not a reliable guide for how the Egyptians (or anyone else) practiced or believed in pre-Christian times.

[XSC3]

The question of books that cite the December 25th date is to ask "where did this book find the date?" In other words, if it's a real date associated with ancient Egyptian religion, then we should expect to find it in an ancient primary source. Even if a modern expert were to make the claim, they would need to cite primary evidence. Otherwise it becomes mere speculation or worse. the trouble is that 18th/19th century interest in eastern religions and the "occult" has muddied the waters

[VinnfordSansbury]

Exactly. Thats why I went to the Cairo Calendar because its a primary source.

[XSC3]

"Christ in Egypt" is written by the same DM Murdock (Acharya S) who wrote "The Christ Conspiracy" and "Suns of God." She's no more credible in this than in any of her other non-scholarly works. It would be nice to see a video about it, but I wouldn't expect any surprises. the accusations she makes against her opponents are shallow, conspiratorial excuses

[VinnfordSansbury]

If there is enough support for it after I'm done with Zeitgeist I can make that my next project.