Christ in Egypt by D.M. Murdock

The book “Christ In Egypt, The Horus-Jesus Connection” is as much a story of Christianity as the New Testament. It is a story of the evolution of religious belief , beginning in Egypt, that continues today. D.M. Murdock begins this story in the introduction to the book. She describes the nature of how this story is told. The Jesus myth is not simply a previous tale of Horus with the name Jesus plugged in where one would read Horus. In fact there is not a single narrative of Horus that we could cite to plug Jesus into. Understanding this story requires an understanding of many different influences. In many ways this book reads like a detective novel.

The transformation of Egyptian religious belief is as much a syncretism of various gods and goddesses as is Christianity. It sets the mode by which humankind created religious belief. What I gather from her description, is this method of syncretism is what the ancient pagans saw as the perfection of the god myth through combining the tales of many different gods. There is evidence that the Egyptians were essentially monotheists and saw the various gods as simply one aspect of the great unknown creator god. They would have no problem combining different gods and their characteristics since they would see these as combining parts of a single great and mysterious god. This is expressed in hieroglyphs which picture a human body and the heads of two different gods on one single body. An example of this is a Horus-Seth united in a single being from the Amduat. Pagans in general had no problem including the gods of other nations and cultures to perfect their god myths. Egyptian influence on Greek, Roman, Persian, Hebrew, and other ancient beliefs is pervasive as you will see when you read this book.

This mode of religious expression is very foreign to the Christian believer who has been taught that God does not change. The assumption is that there was an original pure form of Christianity brought about by the disciples of Jesus and this is expressed perfectly from the Bible today in both spiritual and rational means.

Yet, even within the last 100-200 years we see various forms of Christianity being combined with modern ideas rather freely. This is easily seen by comparing sermons from 100 to 200 years ago to the sermons today. Some would argue that essential doctrines haven’t changed. They can only claim this if they dismiss as Christian those forms of Christianity they disagree with. Since we have many more versions of Christianity today than we did even 100 years ago, it would be difficult to pin down even one official version of Christianity to refute syncretism. And these various versions do disagree on what many consider to be essential doctrines. These doctrines include the nature of Jesus, the method of salvation, method of baptism, authority of the Bible, authority of the Pope, day of worship, and many others. This was as true in the 1st century as it is today.

What we find in this book is that Christian beliefs and practices are far from being unique, but are drawn from ancient practices that existed sometimes thousands of years before Christianity. Some of these practices were well known in the ancient world and some were parts of mystery religions. These practices and beliefs were combined together to meet the needs of the 1st century and then synthesized by force into what we call orthodox Christianity by the Roman empire. Lets look briefly at some of the claims of Christian uniqueness.

The virgin birth of the Christ (Anointed) child is central to the claim of Divine origin for Jesus. It has been presented as a unique feature of the Christian religion and the implication is that when it does occur in pagan systems of belief it is a late, post Christian, addition. D.M. Murdock provides extensive documentation of not only the virgin birth being a characteristic of Horus, but his mother Isis is a prototype of the virgin Mary. Early Christian imagery of Jesus and Mary is clearly a copy of the Horus/Isis virgin mother with child. The name Mary means beloved and is commonly merged with the name Isis in the form of Meri or Isis-Meri or Isis the beloved. Virginity has a number of reasons for its inclusion in these god myths. Later reasoning emphasized the need for purity and in the case of Jesus, virginity was proof that Jesus did not come from a human source.

One reason that it is so difficult to find other examples of virgin birth within the literature is because the term parthenogenesis is used for virgin (partheno) birth (genesis). This has been done to hide the fact that it is difficult to find any great leader or god in the ancient world that wasn't the product of virgin birth and is far from unique. The word in greek παρθένος parthenos means virgin and is the prominent root of the Greek temple to the goddess Athena called the Parthenon. This structure was predictably converted to a Christian church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the 6th century.

In the early case of Isis the reason for virginity was quite different. Isis, being the Goddess creator and origin of all life, would have to birth the universe as a virgin. This would make sense to the ancients who would observe that life emerged from the female gender in most species of life. So early creator gods were Goddesses and Earth itself was called Mother Earth. More specifically, Isis births the sun as baby Horus on Dec 25. In the inscription over her temple at Sais you read "The fruit I have begotten is the sun" And with Isis, her virginity was self renewed to the point that she could be a perpetual virgin.

After being born in the form of a helpless child the Sun continued to age and take different forms throughout the year until it would be born again on Dec. 25, the winter solstice. This was the turning point where the daylight hours would begin to get longer. What is interesting is that John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin and preparer of the way, was born exactly 6 months, at the summer solstice, before Jesus. The Christian celebration of St. John occurs at this time in which the daylight hours are the longest and would represent the beginning of the stage of the sun in which its hours would be getting shorter. It is interesting to note in John 3:30 (the most gnostic gospel) it states that "He must increase, but I must decrease." in reference to Jesus.

D.M. Murdock continues to show how Sun worship was an essential part of the syncretic mixture of religious myth which created Christianity. And she clearly establishes that Dec. 25 and the celebrations around the birth of the new sun existed thousands of years before Christianity and were unmistakable features of the 1st century consciousness. This was such a problem that early church fathers had to address accusations that Christians were not Sun worshippers. This is understandable considering all the solar and astronomical references to Jesus as the light of the world, the bright and morning star, the victory of light over darkness, and others in the New Testament.

"St. Cyprian spoke of Christ as the true sun (sol verus)." Cyprian also writes, "O, how wonderfully acted Providence than on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born." "St. Ambrose says precisely, 'He is our new sun (Hic sol novus noster).' Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeon of Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc." Christ in Egypt page 112-113 Clement of Alexandria calls Christ the "Sun of the Resurrection"

The church father Tertullian (c. 155-230 AD/CE) writes in a rather defensive manner to the charge of worshipping the sun, "...Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise?" Ad Nationes 1:13 Augustine (354-430 AD/CE) had to refute the same charges even later in Tractates on the Gospel of John.

When we consider the Egyptian winter solstice celebration we find Epiphanius, Plutarch, and Macrobius describing a similar ceremony that further indicates why Pagans would accuse Christians of worshiping the Sun. Macrobius writes in Saturnalia (1:18:10), "...at the winter solstice the sun would seem to be a little child, like that which the Egyptians bring forth from a shrine on an appointed day, since the day is then at its shortest and the god is accordingly shown as a tiny infant." In the case of Epiphanius the passages describing this celebration in Alexandria are deleted in the Migne edition which presents a case of deliberate and egregious censorship. This is because it describes an infant child brought forth as born of a virgin from the lower depths of the shrine of Core, which means virgin. This wooden image of the child sun is carried on a litter and has the sign of the cross inlaid with gold on each hand, both knees, and on the forehead. Gregory Nazianzen (329-389) describes the Greek form of this celebration in which is heard the festal shout, "the virgin has brought forth, the light grows."



This is just the tip of the iceberg. D.M. Murdock has much more information, with references, on the Egyptian origins of Satan, the resurrection, the star in the east, the three kings, the 12 followers, the miracles, the crucifixion, Proto-Christianity formed in Alexandria, and many others. This book will take a while to get through, and opens up so many more questions and avenues to explore than I ever thought possible. With this book, it is going to be far more difficult to deny the pagan origins of Christianity. It is going to be far more difficult to claim that Christianity is "The Truth."

That being said, it does open up many of the sayings ascribed to Jesus. These sayings can be applied in a much broader context and allows them to reveal many of their original intents within the mystery religions of the 1st century. These Bible sayings and stories are an integral part of the Western mind. Having the freedom to look at these stories as myths places them within our consciousness in a way that allows them to speak out from under the subconscious threats of death and condemnation. No longer does fundamental Christianity have a hold on these truths that are rather lifeless and frightening when applied in reference to beliefs in an eternal hell and the obsessive need to have Jesus become everyone's "personal savior."

D.M. Murdock obviously put a lot of work and research into this book. It is well worth reading and reveals insights into what is the true origin of Christianity. This information should have been available to the general public long ago. It is understandable why this hasn't been presented before because for many centuries any criticism of the "truth" of Christianity would be met by death, loss of the ability to make an income, and other social pressures. I have also learned to appreciate the finer points of the Egyptian religion. It is no longer this dark and scary entry into the land of mummies and monsters born of curses and superstition. It is a very sophisticated philosophy of light and darkness, good and evil, and the purification of the soul.

I highly recommend this book and encourage you to read it slowly and thoughtfully, taking time to place yourself back in time with D.M. Murdock when humanity saw things much differently.

The "Ring of Truth?"

In the last few weeks I have been having a conversation with a number of Christian apologists about the basis of Christian belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible. This conversation has mainly been about the way in which the Bible was put together and the influences on this process. When we look at the history of this process we find violence, bribery, torture, and political maneuvering. It is very difficult to find anything spiritual within this history.

When the evidence is finally sifted through the “faith” appeal usually is the final appeal for believers. Basically it means that we need to have “faith” in those things that can’t be defended through reason. An interesting application of this “faith” approach is by quoting J. B. Phillips. He used the term “ring of truth” to refer to the Divine nature of the Bible. He noted, as he was translating the Bible, he felt a general “ring of truth” unique to the Bible as compared to his work translating other ancient documents. To be fair to J. B. Phillips, he didn’t believe in verbal inspiration, that Satan was real, nor in many of the “miracles” of Jesus. He would relegate them to either parables, alternate explanations, or myths.

In his autobiography he stated, “...I felt bound to abandon the `God-dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).

I want to look at, more specifically, the gospels. I think if there is a "ring of truth" around the gospels, its because of the profound wisdom of some of the teachings of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus is divine or is the only source of true wisdom. Much like J. B. Phillips, I don't find a "ring of truth" around the historical account because it appears that there are accommodations for later orthodox beliefs and for several doctrinal problems encountered in the first few centuries of Christianity.

There are some contributions that Jesus makes that, I believe, go unrecognized because of all the emphasis on his death as a sacrifice, the claim of his divine nature, and the need for salvation, which I have come to believe have their source in the strong Greek, Pagan, and Roman influences on the early Christian church.

I would also note that many of us, who grew up in Christian cultures, are working under a fair amount of conditioning in regards to Christianity. And that conditioning has a fair amount of fear involved. This "faith based" reasoning has its counter parts in other traditions that most Christians would find unbelievable. One simply has to note the strong hold the Qur'an has on most Muslims as the final revelation of God or the Book of Morman as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

Christians dismiss the mythology of the Qur'an and the Book of Morman for reasons they are unwilling to apply to the Bible because they have "faith." When I look at what is typical of most religious beliefs systems I find the same types of myth building within Christianity. These are powerful cultural influences that are linked very deeply to a person's view of the world. They are not easy to change because they have such a strong momentum.

When I step back from my cultural momentum and view Christian history and belief from a rational perspective, I find the same problems as I find in other belief systems and if I am going to retain an intellectually honest perspective, I need to apply the same types of tests to all belief systems no matter how painful that process may be, because, ultimately, I have found that, as Jesus said, the truth does set one free.

And this brings me back to what may provide a “ring of truth” to the gospel account of Jesus and his teachings. There are a number of themes that Jesus addresses, but the one that is often the most recognizable is his statement that we love our neighbor as our self. This statement is not unique to Jesus since we find the same statement in the Torah. And this is not simply some wise saying, but it is one of the two statements that define the law of God in Jewish belief. The first one being the requirement to love God with all your heart.

In the Torah the statement reads like this

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:18 NKJ

In this context the idea of one’s neighbor is only within the children of one’s own people. What Jesus adds, through the story of the Good Samaritan, is the idea of one’s neighbor extends far beyond one’s own people. We empathize with the poor man beaten by robbers, abandoned by his countrymen and feel his relief at being taken care of by the Samaritan, who is considered an outcast. And when Jesus asks us who was this beaten man’s neighbor, we feel the injustice of excluding the kind Samaritan from our love simply because he is a Samaritan.

I think this is the key concept that Jesus brings to us. He takes an ethical principle (love your neighbor as yourself) that is based on empathy and uses that empathy to extend this principle to all people. He further links this idea to empathy when he states “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” This is quoted in both Luke 6:31 and in Matthew 7:12.

This idea of empathy, rather than authority, as the basis of ethical behavior puts a lot of confidence in the human heart. It puts confidence in the human capacity to imagine how it might feel to be in another’s place and experience. It also puts a lot of confidence in the ability of one to love one’s self. For me, love for one’s self is the ability to imagine how it might feel to see one’s self from another’s perspective of grace.

This idea, to be fully realized, requires elements of both eastern and western thought. Eastern religious practice has made an art form of the exploration of the inner self. Its practices have the ability to awaken the capabilities of the heart and the capabilities of awareness. Western religious practice has emphasized much of the practical application of belief. Empathy, to be fully developed needs a rich and full inner life and a clear awareness of the world around. Empathy, to be fully applied, needs to know how to turn the gifts of the inner life into connections with others.

Eastern practice tries to avoid dualistic types of thinking to find the middle path. In Western terms this would be a form of Grace, where one gives up the need to punish and refrains from judging. All of these were explored by Jesus within the context of Jewish law. Jesus stated that to judge others was to judge oneself and to be free from judgment one had to refrain from judging others. He was also very practical in his application of love. He references acts of kindness and love as the determining factor of one’s inner life. Acts of kindness done to others was doing them to God. This may have indicated how Jesus saw connections between all and the spirit of God within.

Paul, who claimed to be an apostle, said “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” 1st Corinthians 10:24 This is a major shift in ethical emphasis. I believe this created a competition for goodness within Christianity. If one takes away the love for one’s self, empathy is taken away as well. For I no longer have a self to reference other’s feelings. And if I don’t seek my own good at all, then my ability to sustain my own life will take my gifts away from others eventually and in the mean time reduce their effectiveness.

With the introduction of Jesus becoming a sacrifice for our sins, we no longer have a self sustaining philosophy of empathy, but a sacrificing god who we are now required to emulate. The focus is taken off our connection with others through empathy. It is now focused on how much we can sacrifice. The suffering of Jesus and its contemplation holds front and center rather than love for our fellow beings. Ultimately this becomes a practice of self contemplation. The contemplation of one’s worthiness or unworthiness as it may be.

If we can tease one more thing from Jesus, we might contemplate the possible intent of this statement.

'I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink'...Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?...'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Matthew 25:35, 37, 40

If we see Jesus as human, then we could say that any kindness or harm we do is done to everyone. If we see Jesus as Divine, we could say that the Divine dwells in everyone. If we see him as both we could say that everyone is a member of the family and everyone is Divine. I’m sure there are infinite variations of how we might see the nature of humans and Jesus.

What I have observed within communities that I have participated in is that when a person is allowed to tell their story from their heart and is really heard within that community a bond develops and actions naturally come forth. It is clear that when these empathetic connections are established there is a natural desire and motivation to love one another. It comes from the stories of people’s lives told in honest and nonjudgmental ways. And it doesn’t matter what people believe or don’t believe in these moments. That empathetic connection communicates much more than ideals, doctrines, words, philosophies, theologies, or ethics could ever instruct.

So if there is a “ring of truth” in the gospels, for me, it is introduction of empathy as the basis for the expression of love toward each other. May we learn how to more fully feel and express our empathy. I think it would be a far better world if everyone knew how to do this well.

Buddha, the Tao, and Grace

I have read recently about a Chinese version of Christianity brought to China in the 7th century by a Persian priest called Alopen. There were some writings composed by this group of Christians unearthed in 1900 in the Mogao Caves near Dunhuang, in Gansu province China that contained what we call the Jesus Sutras. These writings were composed from 625 CE to 1005 CE when they were sealed up in the cave. After being found in 1900 they were stored in a Buddhist temple until they were rediscovered and then translated in 1998.

What they reveal is a blend of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and the Tao. In one section Jesus is portrayed as talking about karma. Thomas Moore asks, "I wonder if the Christian teaching might have a deeper understanding if we did associate it with the idea of karma for a moment."

Thomas Moore goes on to say, " A lot of people think of Christianity as a moral religion: what is right and wrong, what not to do, people in authority telling you how to live. The trouble with that is if you follow all these things, you may not really live a moral life. You may be following the rules, but not be deepening your ethical sense as you grow up and live a more complicated life. If you're thinking of karma, you don't have quite that same emphasis on morality. Instead, you realize that everything you do, every minute, has its impact and consequences. That leads to a moral way of living, but with a different quality than the one I described before."

When asked to compare Christianity with Buddhism Thomas Moore says, "But I think it goes deeper than that, because I think within Christianity-certainly in the way it's come down historically-people worry about being virtuous: Am I doing the right thing, am I a good person? In Buddhism as I know it, which is much less than I know Christianity, I would say people would be more interested in what sort of wisdom you have. Do you have some degree of enlightenment, are you in tune with the law of nature and of life? That's a different notion from being virtuous."

What often strikes me when I read Jesus is that his words and ideas often seem to act as bridges. This image is used to describe Christianity, which was called the Luminous Religion and The Way by the Chinese. The cross was seen as a bridge between yin and yang. According to the ancient Chinese philosophers, in the beginning was Tao. But then Tao separated into the two prime principles, yin and yang. And from the many combinations of yang and yin everything else that is in the world has emerged. This has its mythical twin in the story of the Fall in which sin comes from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Evil/Darkness being Yin and light/good being yang. And in some sense the knowlege of these forms the world of sin. The first symptoms of this being shame (Adam and Eve recognized their nakedness) and the other being blame. (Adam blamed God for giving him Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent.)

It is an intersting play of words if we state Genesis 1:3 in this way. And the Tao said, "Let there be light," and there was yang. Tao saw that the yang was good, and the Tao was separated, the yang from the yin.

Now if the cross is the bridge between light and dark and/or a bridge between good and evil then it could be seen as a rejoining of these opposites and a forming of the Tao. One way to see in this in a Christian context is in two ideas that Jesus emphasized. One was not judging others. Judging is the process of separating good from bad. The other is the concept of forgiveness, which is giving up the need to punish or pass judgment. These could certainly be seen as a path apart from good and evil. Buddha called his teaching the middle way and early Christianity was simply called The Way.

In a world that considered an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as the highest form of justice, forgiveness and not passing judgment would seem like radical concepts. These concepts are almost incomprehensible for the Western mind coming from a Roman justice ethic. In many ways these are Eastern understandings of the underpinnings of ethical behavior or of beautiful behavior. Some have said that it is not goodness that defines the highest ethic, but beauty.

When we use the word Grace, it encompasses forgiveness, the giving up of judgment, and Grace itself is often seen as one definition of beauty.