There was no such person as Anup the Baptiser and the Egyptians were not familiar with such a custom until the time of the Copts. That was around 200 ce long after the Gospels were written. Horus did not perform miracles, which was not an Egyptian concept. They never wrote about miracles and had not word for such things, until after the Christian era. The Egyptians had no such thing as demons, in the sense that we understand them. They had jealous and angry gods,but they did not need to be exorcised. Horus, as well as other gods, were perfectly capable of defeating bad acting gods and they had no concept of exorcism. The nearest thing they had to a demon was Apep. He was defeated by a human, not exorcised by a god.
The Egyptians knew about crucifixion during the Roman period, which was a common way of punishment. It was designed to be a deterrent to crime by allowing the people to see it. They would not have been able to watch a god being crucified. Horus was never portrayed as a human, although he was made known through kings that claimed they were deified by the authority of Horus. Horus was intended to live forever. If He was killed by the Copts I have never seen such a texts. The only way any Egyptian god ever escaped a tomb was as a spirit. Osirus was never buried. His body parts, other than that one, were never found. It was never buried, but instead, turned into a golden phallus to be used in ceremonies commemorating Isis. The fact that she was honored with a phallus seems to be a good indication that the Egyptians did not see her as a virgin. They rode a giant phallus through the city in commeration. No society ever portrayed a virgin mother in that manner. It would have been contradictory.
Neither Osirus or Horus was ever known by "The Way, The Truth,The Son of Man, Good Shepherd,or any of the other things, especially Messiah. Messiah is not an Egyptian word and they never saw any single god as a savior. The gods came to revenge other gods and sometimes humans in connection to a particular past event, but they had no concept of a god that came to save humanity, until the Copts intertwined ancient Egyptian gods with Christianity. With a little imagination, "The Way of Horus", became "Horus ,The Way." The Way of Horus was a road on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, which was known by different names in different periods. It was called "The Way of the Ruler," The Way of Ramesses," The Way of Merenepthah," and by the Hebrews as "The Way of the Philistines." It ran through the Delta where the "Residence," habitation of the gods was located. It was the abode of Horus, Isis, Osirus, Geb, Tum, and Hathor, who was also called Hor,as in Mt. Hor.
There was or is any such Egyptian word as "Iusa,and there is no Egyptian texts in existence that refers to any god as Holy Child or Anointed One. Gods were not anointed. They did not need to be. They were deities from birth and needed no ceremonies to make them gods. The only way for a human to get anointed was to die and be mummified. The Egyptian KRST, as been used by some to be associated with a Christmas cake, as in KRST-mes. Krst had to do with a burial and even Massey admitted that. The exact meaning is not clear, but some Egyptologists believe it was a tomb and some the process of mummification. Either way, none of them believe it meant soul which was ka. The fabricator of that definition misunderstood the difference between death and Christmas cakes, probably from the many whom have been heard saying "I would rather die that eat a fruit cake."While Set could accurately have been called " The Jealous One," He was not known as being evil,especially in a way that could be identified Set, Seten, Satan as some seem to understand. It is not even clear if those who use it actually believe it themselves or just try to convince Christians that it is true.
There is not doubt that Massey read at least many of the references given for His sources. The question is how many of them could actually be used to back up a Horus/Jesus connection. If they were misquoted or misinterpreted the quality of Masseys work is questionable regardless of claims that it is sound. Massey's defractors would include some of those He apparently read. Dr E.A. Wallis Budge, for one, was a liberal Christian and an Egyptologists, but He never believed that Christianity was founded on paganism. His "The Book of The Dead" written in 1895 has been misinterpreted, whether by Massey or those who want it to agree with their beliefs. Budge makes no mention of anything that could be construed as comparing Horus to Jesus. His book "Osirus and The Egyptian Resurrection is, as the title explains about the resurrection of Osirus and not Horus. It's not clear where the image of the twelve standing in line before a King actually came from, but there are similar paintings with the coffin texts that have 14 figures sitting before a king. They are not disciples, but gods who have come to escort the deceased king into the after life. Massey read something into the texts from the Book of the Dead that was not there. There is no reason to believe the following, written by Budge, claims Isis was a virgin:
"She raised up the inactive members of whose heart was still, she
drew from him his essence, she made an heir, she reared the child in
loneliness, and the place where he was not known, and he grew in strength and
stature, and his hand was mighty in the House of Keb. The Company of the Gods
rejoiced, rejoiced, at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, whose heart was
firm, the triumphant, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris."
Isis raised up the inactive member of Osirus and used it to impregnate herself. An Egyptologist should have been
familiar with texts that make that even more clear. Budge quoted from the Turin Papyrus but ,for obvious reasons, he never quoted or mentioned the Turin Erotic Papyrus (Papyrus 55001). It shows graphic images of the coupling of Osirus and Isis, which are also shown in a number of temples from the New Kingdom (1550-1070 B.C.E.) They leave no doubt whatsoever that Isis was not a virgin and never intended to be portrayed as one. The images are available at the Bubastus art museum.The images themselves begin with turin_133b.jpg, and run through turin_137.html. They are very graphic and should be avoided by those who are easily offended.
The Egyptian Temple of Edfu, also called the Temple of Horus, was built in 57 bc and the texts there would be the most likely candidate for anything prior to the Christian era that might be used to connect Horus to Jesus. There is nothing in the Temple texts to suggest such a connection. Being the last known Egyptian reference before the start of the Christian era, 57 years later, it is of little use as evidence for Egyptian gods having been used for the founding of Christianity. According to a quote found on Acharya's web sit "Truth Be Known", Massey claimed to not have used his own interpretations, although he was qualified to do so.Acharya understood that to mean that Massey had indeed consulted with top Egyptologists for His book. I found no such evidence in Massey's book and His quote about not using His own interpretations seems more like an excuse for the many errors throughout His book. He apparently wouldn't even take credit for what he surely knew would be a rejection of His belief as well as His history. References to sites that have to do with the Horus/Jesus connection, or the movie Zeitgeist, will prove to be of little value in reaching a decision. They will either lead to Acharya and Steller house publishing or to Christian apologetic sites. Both are very much biased toward their cause, although some of the sites have links to unbiased sources. A review of the movie Zeitgeist by the author Jay Kinney and by Edward L Winston can be read at the sites below. Neither one has a Christian apologetic motive.
Those who believe in the Christian conspiracy can be read at sites like the "above top secret" site, which has no sources and free thought nation which has links to the sites Acharya owns or has left blogs on.
Truth Be Known
Above Top Secret
Freethoughtnation
Free thought nation is advertised as being a place for freethinkers although some members do not seem to be very friendly toward opposing views. It could prove to be a good place to learn why Christians are on the defensive. They are not typical typical atheists or free thinkers, which is defined as a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.That can not be done without being influenced by truth which doesn't seem to be on the agenda at free thought nation.
More
