The Nativity Scene of Amenhotep III at Luxor

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection

"In this picture we have the Annunciation, the Conception, the Birth, and the Adoration, as described in the First and Second Chapters of Luke's Gospel; and as we have historical assurance that the chapters in Matthew's Gospel which contain the Miraculous Birth of Jesus are an after addition not in the earliest manuscripts, it seems probable that these two poetical chapters in Luke may also be unhistorical, and be borrowed from the Egyptian accounts of the miraculous birth of their kings."

Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity (p. 19)

In the temple of Amun at the site of Luxor in Egypt appears a series of scenes depicting the divine birth of the king/pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty (c. 1570-1293 BCE), Amenhotep/Amenhotpe or Amenophis III, who reigned during the 14th century BCE (c. 1390-c. 1352 BCE). The Luxor nativity imagery represents a significant artifact demonstrating important pre-Christian religious motifs evidently incorporated into Christianity. Because of its appearance in the internet movie "ZEITGEIST, Part 1," millions of people have now seen this image and become interested in this subject. In my book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, I examine this birth scene in the Luxor temple in detail, in over 30 pages. This present article is adapted from the extensive analysis in CIE and also serves as a response to a critical article by historian Richard Carrier concerning the Egyptian nativity scenes.

In my book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (pp. 115-116), which raises up numerous comparisons between the Christian and Pagan religions, I included the following description of the above engraving of some of the scenes from the Luxor birth cycle:

Furthermore, inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph, the "Holy Ghost," impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts.

This image and my text were reproduced around the internet along with attempts to discredit the thesis of similarities between the Egyptian and Christian nativities. In this effort, the discussion by Carrier, an atheist, was ironically posted on a Christian apologetics website. With the Luxor image's inclusion in the ZEITGEIST movie, this subject requires a closer look, to discover if there is more to the subject than meets the eye. The description I provided of the Luxor birth scenes was picked over by Carrier for a number of issues, including whether or not the "annunciation" of the birth precedes the conception, as it does in the Christian story; if it could be called a "miraculous conception"; whether or not the king's mother could be deemed a "virgin" after conception; and the use of the term "magi" to describe individuals adoring the newborn babe and the name "Isis" for the mother. It should be exmphasized that none of these contentions originated with me but were paraphrased from the work of lay Egyptologist Gerald Massey, who in turn evidently adapted the basics from Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe (1799-1881), an Egyptologist and translator of the Bible, whose relevant quote appears at the top of this article.

Background of the Egyptian Birth Cycle

The precise nature of the Egyptian birth scenes has been the subject of much debate since they were first analyzed by Western scholars in the 19th century, beginning most prominently with famous French linguist Champollion, a decipherer of the Rosetta Stone. In consideration of the magnitude of the Luxor-Karnak temple complex, it is apparent that Amenhotep III was a highly noteworthy king. In fact, Amenhotep III is so important that he is deemed the initiator of the "new concept" of "a divine living king."(1) The Egyptian nativity must thus be considered to represent a divine birth no less significant or real to the Egyptians than the much later Christian nativity is to Christians.

The nativity scenes at Luxor were not the first to have been created, as similar depictions existed earlier concerning the birth of the female pharaoh Hatshepsut (15th century BCE) in her temple at Deir el Bahari. Nativity scenes were also commonly used in "the Mamisi of the later periods,"(2) mamisi or mammisis constituting "birth rooms" or "birth houses." The fact is that these birth scenes or "nativity templates," so to speak, were popular and in the minds of Egyptians beginning at least 3,400 years ago and continuing into the second century of the common era, with its eventual creation of Christianity.

In discussing the Amenhotep and Hatshepsut birth cycles, it should be kept in mind that the imagery itself may be essentially the same, and some of the same language is used in both inscriptions. However, even though they have been haphazardly mixed at times, the inscriptions of these two pharaohs' birth cycles are "substantially different," according to Dr. William Murnane, a director of the Great Hypostyle Hall Project at the Karnak Temple in Luxor.(3)

In their analyses of the Luxor birth cycle, older scholars such as Dr. Sharpe, Count Lesseps and Massey consistently reproduced what turns out to be the second row of the narrative, omitting the first row, possibly because the latter had not yet been reproduced for study and/or was largely still unknown to European Egyptologists of the time.(3a) This lack of the first row is where some of the difficulties have come in, because these older scholars claimed the second scene in what turns out to be the second row depicts an "immaculate" or "divine conception," when in fact in the previous panel we find a different scenario, with the father god Amun in direct contact with the queen who will bear the divine child. It is thus asserted that the conception comes before the annunciation by the ibis-headed Thoth, as in the first panel of the second row, shown above. Nevertheless, as we will see, the scene identified by Dr. Sharpe, Count Lesseps and Gerald Massey as "the Conception" does in reality represent a "miraculous conception" or quickening of sorts, while even with the important first panel factored into the analysis, the annunciation of the divine child to the virgin queen still comes before the conception.

"Soft-Core Porn?"

In his extensive and frequently cited study of the birth scenes of the Egyptian pharaohs, Die Geburt des Gottkönigs, Egyptologist Dr. Hellmut Brunner (1913-1997), a professor of Theology, Archaeology and Egyptology at the University of Tübingen, presents the scenes at Luxor in the following order (here we are omitting the last six scenes for brevity's sake):

     1. The goddess Hathor, in the middle, embraces the virgin queen on the left, with the father god Amun on the right.
     2. Amun is on the right, with another figure on the left (the god Thoth? King Thothmes IV?).
     3. Amun, on the left, turns back and looks at Thoth, who is holding scrolls.
     4. The queen is sitting on the left, Amun on the right, of the platform being supported by the two goddesses. Amun is holding an ankh to the queen's nostril.
     5. The god Khnum is on the left, with Amun on the right.
     6. Khnum on the right fashioning the king and his ka, with Hathor on the left holding an ankh or cross of life.
     7. Thoth announces to the queen.
     8. Khnum is on the left and Hathor on the right of the queen, Hathor holding an ankh to her nostril, while Khnum holds one to the back of her head.
     9. The queen is sitting on a couch surrounded by five figures on the left and four on the right, one in a group of three holding the baby….

In his brief analysis of the scenes as portrayed by Dr. Brunner, Carrier interprets Brunner's German translation of the inscriptions of scene or panel 4, to depict a "risque" portrayal of "very real sex" between Amun and the queen:

The inscription in Panel 4 (which is often cited on the web as the key frame) describes the god Amun jumping into bed with the human Queen on her wedding night (or at any rate before she consummates her marriage with the human King) disguised as her husband. But she recognizes the smell of a god, so he reveals himself, then "enters her" (sic). The narrative then gets a bit risque-the god burning with lust, queen begging to be embraced, there's kissing going on, Amun's buddy Thoth stands by the bed to watch, and after Amun "does everything he wished with her" she and Amun engage in some divine pillow talk, and so on. At one point the queen exclaims amazement at "how large" Amun's "organ of love" is, and she is "jubilant" when he thrusts it into her. Ah, I lament the death of pagan religion. It's [sic] stories are so much more fun! At any rate, the couple relax after "getting it on," and the god tells her in bed that she is impregnated and will bear his son, Amenophis. To be more exact, the Queen inadvertently chooses the name by telling Amun she loves him, which is what "Amenophis" means.

Despite the giddy "Penthouse Forum" interpretation, there is no mention by other, earlier scholars and Egyptologists such as Drs. Budge, Breasted or Sayce, et al., that the Luxor inscriptions reveal the god "jumping into bed" or engaging in "very real sex," with the queen discussing the size of Amun's "organ of love," or that he specifically "thrusts it into her." Nor is the expression "getting it on" to be found in any rendition of the scene. Budge delicately describes the god and queen merely as "holding converse," while Rev. Dr. James Baikie elegantly opines that the mother is impregnated by the ankh, "the divine breath of life, which is held to her nose."(4) Neither of these scholars indicates anything sexual about the scene, the implications of which represent the greatest matter of debate about these birth scenes. Like Dr. Baikie, Ernest Busenbark asserts that the virgin's impregnation occurs with the holding of the ankhs or "crosses of life" to the head and nostrils. In Man, God, and Civilization, Dr. John Jackson recounts the scene with "Kneph" (Khnum) and Hathor holding crosses/ankhs to the "head and nostrils" of the virgin queen, after which she becomes "mystically impregnated."(5) Indeed, the activity of Khnum/Kneph putting the ankh to the queen's nostril to impart life constitutes another sort of conception, mystically and spiritually - a significant concept that is not tremendously different from that found within Christianity and that has been claimed as a predecessor for the Christian nativity motif of the Holy Spirit fecundating the Virgin Mary. In his description of Amenhotep's "birth room," Andrew Humphreys opines the conception occurs through the fingertips of the god and queen sitting on the bed/sky, remarking, "You can even see the moment of conception when the fingers of the god touch those of the queen and 'his dew filled her body', according to the accompanying hieroglyphic caption."(6) As may be obvious, there exists a debate as to when and how the conception/impregnation occurs.6a

Moreover, where Carrier sees "pillow talk," in the image the god and the queen are seated on a platform floating above two goddesses. The pair is therefore not lying down on a bed, as is the impression given by the phrase "pillow talk." In describing the image of the fourth scene, Dr. Brunner's German simply relates what we can see: Amun and the queen are discreetly sitting on a "bed," which is simply a platform being held by two goddesses.(7)  This "bed" or platform is said to be indicated by the hieroglyph for "sky," while Murnane calls it the "vault of heaven."  Describing this scene as "the god Amun jumping into bed with the human Queen" seems to be unnecessarily sexual, even when we factor in the inscription.

For the inscription of this "bed" scene, Carrier refers us to page 42, et seq., of Brunner, upon which we find two main paragraphs in German relating the words spoken by Amun and the queen as reflected in the hieroglyphs surrounding the image. Carrier states this is where the "very real sex" and "soft-core porn" come in. However, in "skimming" Brunner's text, as he puts it, Carrier has mistakenly dealt with the substantially different Hatshepsut text (Brunner's "IV D"), demonstrating an egregious error in garbling the cycles, when in fact we are specifically interested in the Luxor narrative (IV L). Indeed, the Luxor inscription is lacking two important passages found in the Hatshepsut text that could be considered "erotic" but hardly constitute "soft-core porn": "he gave his heart to her" ("er gab sein Herz zu ihr hin") (IV D a) and "she kissed him" ("[sie] küßte [ihn]") (IV D d).(8) In the Luxor inscription, there is no kissing or giving of the heart.(8a)

Since we are concerned in reality with the Luxor narrative, let us look at the first paragraph of Brunner's German translation of the inscription in scene 4 (IV L a), in which we find the words of Amun, followed by a description of the initial part of the scene:

Er fand sie, wie sie ruhte im Innersten ihres Palastes. Sie erwachte wegen des Gottesduftes, sie lachte Seiner Majestät entgegen. Er ging sogleich zu ihr, er entbrannte in Liebe zu ihr; er ließ sie ihn sehen in seiner Gottesgestalt, nachdem er vor sie gekommen war, so daß sie jubelte beim Anblick seiner Vollkommenheit; seine Liebe, (sie) ging ein in ihren Leib. Der Palast war überflutet (mit) Gottesduft, und alle seine Gerüche waren (solche) aus Punt.(9)

My translation of Brunner's German is as follows:

He found her, as she rested in the interior of her palace. She awoke because of the god's scent, and she laughed at His Majesty. He went immediately to her, he was passionately in love with her; he let her see him in his Godliness, after he had come in front of her, so that she rejoiced at the sight of his perfection; his love (it) went into her body. The palace was flooded with God-scent, and all his aromas were (such as) out of Punt.

Dr. Murnane directly translates the Egyptian of the same scene from Luxor:

It was resting in the interior of the palace that he found her. At the god's scent she awoke, and she laughed in front of his Person. He went to her at once, for he lusted after her. He caused her to see him in his godly shape after he had come right up to her, so that she rejoiced at seeing his beauty. Love of him coursed through her limbs, and the palace was flooded <with> the god's scent: all his smells were those of Punt!(10)

As we can see, the phrase "he gave his heart to her" is missing, because it was not present in the Luxor narrative. Moreover, what Brunner renders "he was passionately in love with her," Murnane translates as "he lusted after her." In this regard, Brunner's interpretation is actually less sexy than Murnane's. While there is the word "lusted" and a bit of passion on the part of the queen in Murnane's rendering, there is no mention of Amun's phallus or anything else to give the impression of the "soft-core porn" we encounter in the Carrier interpretation. In fact, Dr. Murnane's rendition is so tame that it is not a bed that the two lovers are seated upon but the "vault of heaven." Also, the phrase "his love went into her body" does not necessarily mean, as Carrier (or Brunner) apparently believes it does, that he "thrust his organ into her," particularly in consideration of Dr. Murnane's translation of the Egyptian as, "Love of him coursed through her limbs." Naturally, the word "love" could also indicate romance, rather than "organ of love."

In addition, when Carrier is relating the words of the queen, he is likewise apparently mistakenly referring to the section of the Hatshepsut inscription Brunner labels "IV D b," the text of which is substantially different from the Luxor inscription. Brunner's German rendition of the queen's words in the Luxor inscription (IV L b) is as follows:

"Wie groß since doch deine Bas! Wie vollkommen ist diese [deine]...! Wie [verborgen] sind die Pläne, die du durchführst! Wie zufrieden ist dein Herz über meine Majestät! Dein Duft ist in allen meinen Gliedern!", nachdem die Majestät dieses Gottes alles, was er wollte, mit ihr getan hatte.(11)

In Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, theologian and Bible scholar Dr. Walter Beyerlin, in collaboration with Dr. Brunner, provides an English translation of the same Luxor passage as follows:

"How great is your power! How perfect is your…! How hidden are the plans which you make! How contented is your heart at my majesty! Your breath is in all my limbs," after the majesty of this god has done with me all that he willed…(12)

Dr. Murnane's direct translation of the Egyptian inscription for the same birth scene is thus:

"How great, indeed, is your power! How beautiful is [everything] which you have [done]. How hidden are the plans which you have made. How satisfied is your heart at my Person! Your fragrance is throughout all my body." After this, (i.e.), the Person of this God's doing all that he wanted with her.(13)

The term Bas in the first sentence of the Egyptian represents the plural of ba, which is generally translated as "soul" and which in this case apparently refers to the souls of the kings, as defined by Dr. Murnane: "The Bas of a locality are assumed to be the divinized ancient kings of those places."(14) (In his analysis, Carrier appears to be using the wrong terminology when describing the ka as the "soul," when "soul" is usually reserved for the Egyptian term ba, as stated by Dr. James P. Allen in The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts: "The ba of the living survives after the body dies and in this respect is similar to the modern concept of the soul."(14a) The ka, on the other hand, represents both a sort of "body double" and the "life force." As Dr. Allen says, "Ka... The force of conscious life, present in men, gods, and akhs."(14b) Like Beyerlin, Dr. Murnane renders this passage as the queen exclaiming, "How great is your power!" This is the only phrase in which the queen is depicted as shouting about the size of something, and, unless the Bas are to be misinterpreted as such, her cry is not about the god's "organ of love."

In her description of the birth narrative, in Feasts of Light Normandi Ellis eloquently bridges the pronounced gap between the writers of the Victorian and Playboy eras, with a decidedly feminine but inclusive take on the birth scenes at Luxor:

The feast of The Conception of Horus celebrates the Queen Mother as the mortal embodiment of the divine Great Mother. In the birth chapel at the Temple of Luxor we find a delicate rendering of the immaculate conception of pharaoh Amenhotep III as the embodiment of Horus. Well before conception, the divine child's birth is preordained. On his potter's wheel, the god Khnum already shapes the twin images of the pharaoh and his ka, or "divine double." The spiritual contract has been struck between Khnum and the High God, in this case, Amun.

Actual conception occurs in heaven. On earth the god Amun inhabits the body of the pharaoh's father; but in this spiritual portrait, the god Amun and Queen Mutemuia, the mortal mother of Amenhotep III, sit close together atop a hieroglyph depicting the sky. Their knees touch, their hands clasp, their eyes meet. Tenderly, Amun lifts his hand to touch Mutemuia's face, as if he were offering her the heady perfume of a lotus blossom. Held aloft by two goddesses, Serket and Neith, who act as heavenly angels, the feet of the divine couple never touch the ground. The images resonate with stories of the Christ Child's immaculate conception, the angelic messengers to Mary and Joseph, and the white dove that represents the descent of the Holy Spirit which stirs the seed in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Pregnancy and potentiality always being in the realm of the spirit….

This same scene appears throughout Egypt - in the birth chapel of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri, in the birth house of Nectanebo at Dendera, and at both birth houses of Trajan at Philae and Edfu. In the Greek versions of the story, the divine spiritual partner is usually depicted as Hathor, rather than the queen; the father is sometimes depicted as Horus. The Hierogamos always takes place between the divine beings of heaven, who use the physical bodies of the royal couple, so to speak, to conceive and create the heroic, divine son on earth.(15)

In Ellis's view the scene depicts the "conception of Horus," with whom the god-king is identified and whose "actual conception occurs in heaven," producing an "immaculate conception."

The sacred bride is thus the "Great Mother," who, in the ancient world as in the Christian era was undoubtedly viewed as "the Virgin" as well, serving in Egypt as the goddess Isis. Hence, here the queen could be identified as Isis, the "eternal virgin," as demonstrated in Christ in Egypt.

Furthermore, where Carrier sees "very real sex" and "risque" romping with a smelly god, Ellis perceives the Hierogamos - the "sacred marriage" - as "tender and sweet":

The tenderness and sweetness of the Hierogamos, say the ancient texts, permeated the royal bedroom, even the whole palace, with the fragrance of ambrosia, the scent of the gods.(16)

Also depicting the panel somewhat more gracefully, John Anthony West describes this scene at Luxor as a portrayal of "'theogamy', the king born of the Neters - that is to say, the mystical creation through the Word, which is the 'Virgin' birth or Immaculate Conception..."(17)

In A Guide to the Antiquities of Upper Egypt, Sir Arthur E.P. Weigall (1880-1933), a director-general of Upper Egypt, Department of Antiquities, likewise calls the scenes at Deir el-Bahari the "immaculate conception and birth of Queen Hatshepsut."(18)

Also regarding Hatshepsut's birth cycle, in Egyptian Temples Egyptologist Dr. Margaret A. Murray remarks, "...on the lower half of this [back] wall are scenes and inscriptions recording the immaculate conception and divine birth of the queen."(18a)

In his analysis, Dr. Barry J. Kemp, Reader in Egyptology at the University of Cambridge and Field Director of the excavations at el-Amarna by the Egypt Exploration Society includes the fourth scene of the Luxor cycle, under which he writes:

...An immaculate conception; the god Amun (upper right) impregnates Queen Mutemwia (upper left), wife of Tuthmosis IV and mother of the future god-king Amenhetep III. Beneath them sit the goddesses Selket (left) and Neith (right). A scene from the divine birth cycle at Luxor temple... After H. Brunner, Die Geburt des Gottskönigs, Wiesbaden, 1964...(19)

Thus, Dr. Kemp's professional observation, based on his reading of Dr. Brunner, is that the Luxor scene represents an immaculate conception - his words.

The "Immaculate Conception" and "Virgin Birth?"

It is further claimed that the phrase "immaculate conception" - used, as we have seen, by Sir Weigall and Drs. Murray and Kemp, among others - is inappropriate, as it refers only to the Christian Mother of God, the Virgin Mary. While it is true that the phrase "immaculate conception" is in English and was invented only within the last four to five centuries, the question is whether or not the concept behind it existed in ancient times and is applicable to the divine births of pre-Christian deities, royalty and heroes. As it is widely understood, the term merely means that the subject of the conception was created "without original sin," original sin being that which taints humanity from the moment it is conceived. The question then arises as to whether or not the ancient Egyptians perceived conception (or sex) in itself as inherently sinful. If so, we need to establish the conception of the pharaohs as being considered "sinful"; otherwise, their conception too must be deemed "immaculate." Moreover, if there is no original sin, all conceptions could be argued to be "immaculate."

Because of all the purported sexiness, there remains also a question as to whether or not the divine-birth scene at Luxor and elsewhere in Egypt constituted a "virgin birth" long before the Christian era, as suggested by Drs. Sharpe and Sayce,19a as well as Massey, et al. It seems to be agreed by all parties that the queen in this image is a virgin before her impregnation, which occurs after her "converse" with the god Amun in the form of her husband. From all of the emphasis on "virginity" within the Egyptian religion - with Neith and Isis, as demonstrated in Christ in Egypt, said to remain "perpetual virgins" even after they become mothers - it would be surprising not to find this motif within the divine-birth cycle of kings.

In this regard, however, Carrier further asserts that, in his brief comparison between the Christian and Egyptian birth narratives, Dr. Brunner comments that "there is no sex in the former and Mary remains a virgin, whereas in the Egyptian cycle, as the inscription makes unmistakably clear, the Queen definitely loses her virginity." Unfortunately, in several instances in his article, Carrier does not cite his contentions, and it is therefore difficult to follow his conclusions, especially since the original is in German. Because of this lack of citation, we are left with the impression that Carrier has misinterpreted Brunner's remarks concerning the virginal state of both the Egyptian queen and the Jewish maiden prior to conception.(20) In fact, the intention of Brunner's discussion at that point appears to be to emphasize not that the inscription makes the lack of virginity in the fecundated queen "unmistakably clear" but that both women were married virgins before conception. This remark of Brunner's is important because what he does plainly state is that the Egyptian queen was a virgin before Amun approached her.(21)

Over the decades there has been a debate not only as to what parts of this scene of the narrative are to be taken sexually, if at all, but also as to when exactly the conception takes place, as Dr. Brunner relates.(21a) How, then, are we sure that there was any kind of intercourse remotely resembling that of a human being, especially when we are discussing a mythical event?

In any case, even if we accept that there is an unseen romp in the hay in the Luxor scene - although, again, we can tell from the debate that the point of conception is not agreed upon, thereby indicating there is no clearcut description of intercourse - so too in one version of the myth did the impregnation of Isis involve using Osiris's phallus. Yet, as demonstrated in Christ in Egypt, Isis remains a virgin. In fact, there is some suggestion that Amenhotep had his mother depicted as the goddess Neith, the "perpetual virgin."

The Annunciation

As concerns when the annunciation takes place, before or after the conception, the order differs from birth narrative to birth narrative and authority to authority. In the Luxor panels, according to the order of Drs. Brunner, Murnane and Breasted, the narrative opens with the goddess Isis/Hathor embracing the queen and telling her Amun is about to give her a child,(21b) representing an annunciation. As we can see, if we are discussing the Luxor narrative and not erroneously that of Hatshepsut, the order of an annunciation before the conception is accurate and applicable in our comparison between the Egyptian and Christian religions.

The God-King as Horus

Various writers over the centuries have identified the king/pharaoh whose birth is being depicted in these Egyptian birth cycles as "Horus." This association is accurate, since, as seen abundantly in Christ in Egypt, the living king was considered to be Horus on earth, and Horus's birth was extremely significant in Egyptian religion. While pharaohs were thus deemed gods on Earth, their wives and mothers were viewed as the proxies of the goddesses.(22) Since Hatshepsut is not a queen but a pharaoh herself, she too is equated with Horus. As Dr. Tom Hare says, "...Hatshepsut also made the same claims to being Horus and to being the son of Re that we find in all the standard pharaonic titularies."(23)…

As we can clearly see, the baby in this scene is the proxy of Horus, as are all living Egyptian kings or pharaohs. Again, Horus is "the primary divine identity of the pharaoh."(24) Indeed, the serekh upon the ka's head is described by Dr. Murnane as the hieroglyphic "palace façade" that "encloses the first of the king's 'great names,' which defines him as a manifestation of Horus."(25) Therefore, identifying the baby in this birth narrative as Horus is truthful - and this situation of the miraculous birth of a god and son of God could not have escaped the notice of those who ostensibly imitated the Egyptian divine-birth narrative in creating the Christian one. Moreover, since the baby is Horus, combined with other elements it becomes logical to assert that the mother in the nativity template is Isis. Indeed, it is doubtless that the Egyptian divine-king birth cycle emulated the myths of various holy trinities, such as Amun, Mut and Khonsu, and Osiris, Isis and Horus.

The "Magi" Presenting Gifts?

Luxor Birth Narrative/Nativity Scene Amenhotep III imageIn the panel labeled scene 9 by Drs. Brunner and Murnane appear a number of individuals, including, on the second level below the queen, four figures on the right holding up ankhs. In the earlier modern renditions of this image - which were engravings, not photos, based on the badly damaged walls at Luxor - three of these figures were all drawn with human heads, thereby striking one as a set of three men who were obviously dignitaries of some sort, appearing at the divine child's birth and offering him gifts. It is these three figures whom Massey calls "kings" or "magi," using terminology from the New Testament in order to provide a point of comparison possibly indicating where the Christian motif comes from. In Brunner's rendition, however, the third "king" bearing a gift is depicted with a ram's head and appears to be the god Khnum, who, combined with a crocodile-headed god (Sobek?) in front of the three, makes a grouping of four figures, two gods and two humans.(26)

Remarking upon the scene in which the figures present the newly born divine child with gifts, Jesus Puzzle author Earl Doherty first comments upon the terminology used by Massey and others, including the present author, in calling these figures "magis," and then says:

The basic common parallel is there in the Adoration of the child, with dignitaries offering gifts. How apologists can get so excited over these minor distinctions is beyond my understanding. (I suppose when straws are all you have to grasp at, they have to do.)

In labeling these characters "magi" Massey was using a convention to convey the parallel to the scene as found in the gospel story. Surely he did not mean that the term "magi" was inscribed on the wall.

In any case, because in the gospel story the "king" and "wise men" are not numbered as three, Doherty's point about the comparison between dignitaries offering gifts to the babe in the adoration scene is well taken. Since we do not need three kings but any number will do to make this comparison, and since there are clearly a number of important figures offering gifts to the newborn babe, we remain justified in making the correlation between the Egyptian and Christian adoration scenes.

Conclusion

Regardless of the order of the scenes, or the terminology used to describe elements thereof, the fact remains that at the Temple of Luxor is depicted the conception upon a virgin by the highly important father god, Amun, to produce a divine son. As shown in Christ in Egypt, Amun's divine child in this birth cycle is the "bringer of salvation," and this myth of the miraculous birth of the divine savior likely was "recorded of every Egyptian king," making it highly noticeable long before Christ was ever conceived.

The Luxor nativity scene represents the birth sequence of an obviously very important god-king, as it was portrayed in one of the most famous Egyptian sites that endured for some 2,000 years. Egypt, it should be kept in mind, was a mere stone's throw from the Israelite homeland, with a well-trodden "Horus road" linking the two nations and possessing numerous Egyptian artifacts, including a massive, long-lived fort and Horus temple at the site of Tharu, for instance. Moreover, at the time when Christianity was formulated, there were an estimated 1 million Jews, Hebrews, Samaritans and other Israelitish people in Egypt, making up approximately one-half of the important and influential city of Alexandria. The question is, with all the evident influence from the Egyptian religion upon Christianity presented in Christ in Egypt, were the creators of the Christian myth aware of this highly significant birth scene from this singularly important temple site in Egypt? If not, these scenes were common enough right up to and into the common era - could the creators of Christianity really have been oblivious to them?

Indeed, the point is not necessarily that the creators of Christianity used this particular narrative but that there were plenty of miraculous-birth templates long prior to the Christian era, rendering Jesus's own nativity all too mundane and common, rather than representing a unique "historical" and "supernatural" event that proves his divinity above and beyond all others. With such a widespread precedent, could we honestly believe that the Christian nativity scene constituted something new and startling?

Excerpted and adapted from Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection.

Footnotes/Bibliography

(1) Silverman, David P., Wegner, Josef W. and Wegner, Jennifer Houser, Akhenaten & Tutankhamun: Revolution and Restoration, University of Pennsylvania, 2006, p. 12.
(2) O'Connor, David and Silverman, David P., eds., Ancient Egyptian Kingship, E.J. Brill, 1995, p. 72.
(3) Murnane, William J., Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1995, p. 22.
(3a) See Lesseps, Ferdinand de, The Suez Canal: Letters and Documents Descriptive of Its Rise, Henry S. King, Beccles, 1876, p. 204.
(4) Baikie, James, Egyptian Antiquities in the Nile Valley, Methuen & Co., London, 1932, pp. 418-419.
(5) Jackson, John G., Man, God, and Civilization, Citadel, 1983, p. 124.
(6) Humphreys, Andrew, Egypt, Lonely Planet, 2004, p. 211.
(6a) For more on this subject, see Christ in Egypt.
(7) Brunner, Hellmut, Die Geburt Des Gottkönigs, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1986, pp. 35, 36-37.
(8) Brunner, pp. 43, 44.
(8a) See Christ in Egypt for more on this subject, including whether or not "to give the heart" reflects a sexual act.
(9) Brunner, p. 45.
(10) Murnane, p. 23.
(11) Brunner, p. 46. Cf. Breasted, James Henry, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 2, University of Illinois Press, 2001, p. 80fn.
(12) Beyerlin, Walter and Brunner, Hellmut, et al., Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1978, p. 30.
(13) Murnane, p. 23.
(14) Murnane, p. 278.
(14a) Allen, James P., The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2005, p. 426.
(14b) Allen, p. 434. On p. 7, Dr. Allen also remarks: "The ancient Egyptians believed that each human being consists of three basic parts: the physical body and two nonmaterial elements known as the ka and the ba. The ka is an individual's life force, the element that makes the difference between a living body and a dead one; each person's ka ultimately came from the creator and returned to the gods at death. The ba is comparable to the Western notion of the soul or personality, the feature that makes each person a unique individual, apart from the physical element of the body." In his translation of the Book of the Dead, Sir Peter Renouf remarks, "...the word which we translate Soul or Spirit is called ba..." (Renouf, Peter Le Page, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1904, p.  9.)
(15) Ellis, Normandi, Feasts of Light: Celebrations for the Seasons of Life Based on the Egyptian Goddess Mysteries, Quest Books, 1999, p. 127.
(16) Ellis, 127.
(17) West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky, Quest, 1993, p. 158.
(18) Weigall, Arthur E.P., A Guide to the Antiquities of Upper Egypt, The MacMillan Company, NY, 1910, p. 266.
(18a) Murray, Margaret A., Egyptian Temples, Dover, NY, 2002, p. 124.
(19) Kemp, Barry J., Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Routledge, London, 1991, p. 199.
(19a) See Sayce, A.H., The Religion of Ancient Egypt, Kessinger, 2004, p. 249.
(20) "In unserem Zusammenhang soll diese Aussage des Thoth besagen, daß der König die Ehe mit seiner Gemahlin noch nicht habe vollziehen können, so daß die alleinige Vaterschaft des Gottes nicht bezweifelt werden kann; die Königin ist also, obwohl verheiratet, Jungfrau. Bis zur Jungfrauengeburt ist zwar noch ein weiter Schritt; es bleibt bemerkenswert, daß die frühchristliche Überlieferung, um die Jungfrauschaft der ebenfalls verheirateten Maria zu retten, zum Ausweg eines Gatten greift, der im Gegenteil zu alt zum Vollzug der Ehe ist." (Brunner, p. 29)
(21) Brunner also mentions the queen's virginity on page 191.
(21a) See Brunner, p. 53.
(21b) Breasted, ARE, II, 79.
(22) Doherty, Earl, "A Conjunction of Nativity Stories: Massey, Acharya, and Carrier."
(23) Hare, Tom, ReMembering Osiris: Number, Gender, and the Word in Ancient Egyptian Representational Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1999, p. 136.
(24) Murnane, p. 280.
(25) Murnane, p. 283. (Emph. added.)
(26) Cf. Brunner, p. 91-92.

Quote by Dr. Samuel C. Sharpe from Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity: With Their Influence on the Opinions of Modern Christendom, John Russell Smith, London, 1863.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/luxor.html

路加福音裏的黃道象徵及二人的出生

占星學破解了路加福音


路加福音裏的黃道象徵及二人的出生　 by ALVIN BOYD KUHN, PH. D.

前言 : A.B . Kuhn博士的作品還有:
The Mighty Symbol of the Horizon, Nature as Symbol, The Tree of Knowledge, The Rebellion of the Angels, The Ark and the Deluge, The True Meaning of Genesis, The Law of the Two Truths, At Sixes and Sevens, Adam Old and New, The Real and the Actual, Immortality: Yes - But How?, The Mummy Speaks at Last, Symbolism of the Four Elements, Through Science to Religion, Creation in Six Days?, Rudolph Steiner's "Mystery of Golgotha", Krishnamurti and Theosophy, A. B. Kuhn's graduation address at Chambersburg Academy "The Lyre of Orpheus", A. B. Kuhn's unpublished autobiography, Great Pan Returns.

只是把此原文用自已了解的漢語重寫,刪了很多贅詞拗口處,更多有能力的高人若有時間斧正本漢語改寫處的人,敬請至文末網站去作正確高明的漢譯,本文只在揭露國外對基督教起源挖出的眾多觀點而羅列出來爾爾,我旨在揭穿基督神話而已，還原最可能的真相,原文多有拗口處,確已超過小弟的能力之外而無法作完全如實傳神的漢譯,原文並無附上新約的詳細章節,我已一一補上。版權改屬本站二位台長所有,請多加研究,增註來處,廣為貼文
---------------------

占星學僅被認為是預測未來而在現代流行的普羅迷信,古代賢智之士用象徵手法把描述天行健的運動模式以黃道12宮及36個其他星座顯示出來的天空圖(Uranograph)才是第一部圖案表現出來的聖經,而後又表現在宗教宮殿裏,最後又化作文字經典,人体是上帝的宇宙小縮影,Zodiac此字源於希臘字Zodion,意思是人或動物的縮小象徵,四黃道宮兩兩相對,和新約聖經最有相關的處女座及雙魚座總是配在一起,看完本文,你可以繼續說占星學是古代毫無科學根據的古代迷信,那麼,你也該同樣地說,福音書是惡劣的迷信手法；不然的話,您可繼續著迷而精研占星學的博大精深,並且勇敢地走出教會謊言的綑綁。

＊＊基督講的二個誕生＊＊

古代用象徵主義的手法寫下的經典清楚地告訴我們,基督說要有二個母親,約翰福音3:5-7耶穌說[人若不是從水和聖靈生的,就不能進上帝國,從肉身生的就是肉身,從靈生的就是靈,我說你們必須重生,勿認為希奇] 這裏譯成英文的[靈Spirit]的拉丁原文Spiritus在很多章節意思還有[風/氣息/空氣],古代經典裏的象徵主義手法的四元素是 [地/火/水/風],這裏的風指的就是最深層的靈啟(Revelatory moment)時刻
,首生的自然人的肉身以地代表,和水二者是四元素裏較低階粗糙的元素,火和風則是合組成較高層次的,靈性的,第二的亞當

施洗約翰說[我是用水給你們施洗(路加3:16)]這裏應該還有一個被省略掉的[地],他又說,能力比他大的耶穌將是[用聖靈與火給你們施洗(路加3:16)]古代的象徵主義寫作法把人靈/魂與上帝自已的永恆的靈之間無法被破壞的宇宙之愛及智識的火花用[火]代表,相於於較低階的肉身的水及地,火般的原質則藏於由七---八之水組成的物質肉身裏,古代神話的太陽英雄會過河受浸,而有組織系統的宗教受洗儀式不過是象徵由水組成的肉身裏的靈魂,在不斷的化身(Incarnation)過程裏的受浸儀式。這個不斷演化的過程裏的人就是由二種性質所組成,較高的靈性/較低的感官性; 永生/必朽 ; 神性 / 人性; 用象徵主義來講就是 趨上的火性 及 就下的水性 (Fiery & Watery),古代的Heraclitus說:人是被水及肉身囚禁的宇宙之火的一部分; 柏拉圖說: 就肉体是獸性,藉智識,是神性,二者合而為人. 人就是自然的受造物及神的結合,我們第一次的誕生是肉身的誕生,第二次則是靈性領悟時的靈性誕生,靈性的誕生為肉身有形的生命作加冕

所以,保羅筆下甚少提到的實質真質耶穌生平,他講的是其他學者研究比對而認為的[靈性的基督](先不討論耶穌到底真實存在嗎?) 哥林多前書15:46-47[屬靈的不在先,屬血氣的在先,以後才有屬靈的;頭一個人是出於地,乃屬土,第二個人是出於天] 保羅這些話非常地有顯著性的意義,我們第一次的誕生是由羊水誕生的自然的低階肉身者,第二次的生就是靈性的火的誕生(按:基督徒自已不懂,還攻擊柏拉圖主義是異端,其實提順便掩飾基督教破敗而東抄西剪古代文明而來的底細) 請注意47節在新標點和合本裏的[人],由希臘原文翻譯成英/日文的JBS版新約聖書的英文用字是[亞當] 這是接續45節的[首先的亞當成了有靈的活人;末後的亞當成了叫人活的靈], 換言之我們又抓出中文聖經47節用[人]代替原文亞當的不老實翻譯法。 更可見得45節--47節提到的亞當都是比喻,
-----------------
運用天象描敘宇宙真相的古代占星家以[處女座]代表自然的肉身人的誕生,靈性人(第二亞當)的誕生則是與它相對的[雙魚座],此二宮成為肉身及靈性誕生的二位母親,[神話讓耶和華及耶穌得以延續,作者:威廉Harwood]:許多救世主及象徵富饒的女神慶典是在春分後的滿月慶祝,基督教搞的日期和這些復活節慶同一日期,其中最有名的富饒女神叫Easter(復活節),又叫作伊施他爾,Astarte,Ashtaroth等等,是個三位一体的神。　啟導本聖經756頁[舊約以斯帖記導讀]自已說道,全書未提神的名字。本書號稱是講猶太人被擄至波斯時代的女子以斯帖(Esther)故事,這是教會傳統正統的傳述,Walker等學者卻認為該書講的以斯帖應作Ishtar(Astarte,Isis,Astoreth)

這位女神的名字,9章31節的[猶太人末底改Mordechai]是來自巴比倫神話的Mardukay;而耶穌教被教會拼湊出來之前,世界各地早有以「馬利亞」為主的女神信仰了,例如在伊拉克南部叫Marratu,在波斯叫Mariham,猶太人則稱之為Marah,而閃族人還崇拜雌雄同体,性別不分的神(女神/男神)叫Mari-El,瑪麗神之意;列王紀下23:6[亞舍拉]被認為是耶和華的配偶而聖經在此亦留下了證據,而對應瑪麗神的埃及版本叫Meri-Ra,字意結合了陰性的水及陽性的太陽,列王紀上11:5[所羅門隨從西頓人的女神亞斯他錄Astareth]女神信仰從未消退過,反而被東抄西剪的早期教士及福音書作者搞成了聖母瑪利亞,直至144CE左右成書的新約使徒行傳19:24還記錄了土耳其以弗所當地當時流行的「亞底米」女神。於是,這位象徵肉身誕生的[處女座]母親有很多名字:Meri, Mary, Myra Myrrha,Miriam,Moira,維納斯(邱彼特的膝蓋涉過海面激起浪花生下了祂)

相對的,毗濕奴的化身之一的魚,巴比倫人則有Ioanees(Dagon,希伯來語的魚是Dag)而Atergatis及Seriramis女神則被稱為[魚 母親],雙魚座這第二位母親代表的就是人第二次藉由靈/火的誕生的悟性,保羅筆下的耶穌是[叫我們與基督耶穌一起復活,一起坐在天上(以弗所書2:6)]講的就是這種人的第二次誕生,這顯然不是福音書裏的那位耶穌,

因為那位耶穌講的正好相反 : [耶穌說...只是坐在我的左右,不是我可賜的(馬可福音10:40)] 地球上的生命都是來自水,早期基督教徒所用的希臘字母縮寫的魚圖騰的意涵很少被探究,所有的事物都是從物質的子宮誕生,我們的這個字[物質Matter]來自拉丁文的[Mater母親],而組織架構起來神聖概念的物質又成為第二個母親:靈性心性的起源;人類的生命是由海洋演化而來的,魚/水的觀念告訴了我們,無機物的水成了有機体的生命的起源(按:德文[母親Mutter],法文[海洋Mer])
-----------------
古代智者編寫時總把這二位母親描寫成主要神祗的妻子或姐妹,有時是二位母親,有時又是二姐妹,例如Juno就是Jupiter的妻子或姐妹,艾西絲則是歐歷西斯的妻子,其他的神祗亦有此現象:伊施他爾,維納斯,Mylitta,Cybele(古代土耳其弗呂家的大神母),古埃及原本是Apt及Neith,後來轉成艾西絲及Nephthys

而研究神話的G.Massey認為這個Neith就是用來抓魚的[網Net],古埃及亡者書裏可找到線索,艾西絲及涅弗西絲(Nephthys)各自只扮演幼神的媽媽的一半的角色,經文寫道[艾西絲懷了祂,涅弗西絲生下祂]若我們用暗示性的象徵手法來寫則是[艾西絲生祂,涅弗西絲養祂]另一經文讓人更了解:[天上(Heaven)懷了他,Tuat生下他],身為第一母親的物質之母居所在天上,再來屬於細微的物質之次(Sub-Atomic)的靈性心性的發展則是潛藏在深處,原始生命(Primordial being)的內心最深處都發始地蘊藏著所有的事物,宇宙生命的演化裏面,未來的形体的原型大多典型地呈現在循環的弧形裏,肉身的物質及靈性是同質性而可供辯識的而未加以區別的,靈無意識地沈睡著而印度人則把物質存在的唯一條件稱為[物質之源Mulaprakriti],靈是父,肉身物質是母,二者合一,所謂的生命(Being)是父-母雙合,而不是父/母相離相分的個体
-------------------
(插入) Walker的研究指出,古埃及的Horus荷羅斯及其父神歐歷西斯版本的我在父裏面,父在我裏面(約翰福音10:38)與耶穌神話有比其他異教信仰更多的相通性,歐歷西斯是古埃及幾乎所有眾神的化身,有200個名稱,又叫萬王之王,萬主之主,好牧羊人,讓人再生之神;Budge指出,他是埃及神人,死而復活,獵戶座腰帶上的三星Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak 化身三智者預告三位一体的神的到來,這顯然是彌賽亞的原形,此神藉由麥餅的聖餐禮成了可吃的肉,詩篇２３章說耶和華是讓人躺臥青草地的牧者,這是猶太人吸收古埃及的歐歷西斯教派而來的橋段

,古埃及獻給歐歷西斯的禱詞會呼喊在天的阿門(Amen)而祈禱結束亦以該詞結尾;耶穌與荷羅斯的相似處則有：荷羅斯生於12月25日聖誕節,在馬槽(或洞穴)出生,東方出現的星星及三位智者參加了該神的誕生,而荷羅斯被施洗者Anup施以洗禮儀式,並把死者埃拉撒路(el-Azarus)從死亡裏讓他復活,此神有１２門徒,並在水面行走而且在山上變形,被釘後埋在墓裏,又復活此神還說,他就是道路,真理,光;早期耶教徒還沒把偶像說成是出生在馬槽而說是在洞裏,Walker的研究指出,洞穴的普世意涵指的是大地之母的子宮,象徵出生及復活,耶穌也像希臘神話Adonis生於聖洞的記述。
----------------------
鏡射上述觀念的就是艾西絲肚裏懷有古埃及版本的基督:荷羅斯,涅弗西斯則是和艾西絲相同的女孩但已有生產能力的女人身分;小孩階段是成人階段的父親,則相同的艾西絲則可視為是相同而後來的涅弗西絲的母親,這種二位母親的觀念,相同的後來者是相同的前身的女兒的觀念,原封不動地保留在福音書裏,若把天當作是處女物質,祂懷有了神聖意識,那麼之前的Tuat生下什麼呢?

大地讓生命賴以為生而生命又產生神聖的意識,艾西絲即是虛空的太空形態的存在物,涅弗西絲則是原子般微小的物質,或是魚,身為有機体的魚暢游於無機体的第一物質海洋裏,而有形的世界就像魚一樣浮游於太空之海裏,自然界的宇宙大魚則又在蘊含無限生命的大海裏,海中則包含了約拿意識的產生(舊約裏的約拿則是耶穌的另一人物或基督意識的代表),然後穿越生命演化的海洋而大魚又把生命吐向更高心性的父性彼岸(FatherShore);

這個大宇宙就是第二母親涅弗西絲,祂讓有機体的生命發展完成而蘊育出基督(Chistos)及大宇宙之大道(Logos in the Macrocosm); 人的腦及神經系統組織起來表達而用希臘字母排列命名出來的基督意識就是早期基督教的神話傳統的神聖魚,雙魚座的歲差期(precessional period)的魚基督圖騰用在早期基督教剛成形時,這種象徵主義的手法說明了太陽在西元前255年時進入雙魚座;　　基督徒加在神諭裏最有名的偽作就是第八冊裏的(根據天主教百科自已披露)217--500以基督徒用希臘字ICHTHUS(魚圖騰)為首的標誌無疑是基督徒搞的,年代應是3世紀(CE. xiii, 770.) 這個猶太卡巴拉秘教的字眼是由希臘字Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter縮寫而來,意思是,耶穌基督,神子,救贖者,寫成魚形標誌則是古代異教豐收的圖騰而被基督教盜法採用,佔為已有,

古代認為魚未經肉体交合而就在水裏生出,豫表了處女馬利亞生下耶穌的劇情,[論洗禮]揭露神父特土良的名言「我們都是大魚基督Ichthus的效法者,我們都是從水裏生出來的小魚兒」主教艾賽表說[很多人認為這個魚標誌是基督徒偽作的而拒絕它]聖奧古斯汀則繼續維護這個異教/猶太教/十字架教都玩的西柏神諭把戲而說Erythraean西柏神諭書裏的確有提到和基督相關的東西....有些人因為西柏的名字提到基督而認為是基督徒偽作的(Aug., De Civ. Dei, xviii, 23N,&PNF. ii, 3723.)

克里門神父則說西柏神諭書和舊約一樣都是天啟之作;Wheless的研究指出,耶穌教的希臘字母組成的魚標誌(Ichtus)是異教豐盛的象徵;Walker指出,早期羅馬帝國廣泛尊崇Yonic女神的女陰象徵的魚標誌,導致基督教機構堅持接收沿用並予以改寫;Massey研究指出在太古的埃及時的荷羅斯神就是條魚,春分時,太陽通過雙魚座,該神頭上就有魚標誌;Dujardin研究指出在巴勒斯坦崇拜的Joshua神又叫作Nun之子,象徵魚之子,Joshua此名又和基督教的神有關;荷羅斯是位漁夫,並與獅,羔羊,魚有關

第一母親艾西絲的子宮懷有人類未來的基督性,而第二母親涅弗西絲的子宮則把這個基督力量蘊育下來,同樣地類比,人首先藉由物質之始的水而生,之後又藉由靈之火而成為誕生的神,第一母親及第二母親之間可由其物質清楚地畫分開來,物質在第一階段的創造性形態是處女型第一母親,祂是非有機的,我們感官無法察覺的細微次原子的,不可見的,這位無玷垢處女雖然生下祂的有機体物質之子,但仍被稱為是處女;第二母親則是後來發展出來的可見的,原子的,有機的物質,所謂的魚型第二母親,之後又由這有機体發展出靈性的心志狀態,新約裏對應第一母親艾西絲的就是 路加福音2:36的「女先知亞那Anna」,第二母親就是第一母親的女兒,生下耶穌基督的聖母瑪利亞,瑪利亞對應的就是涅弗西絲,古埃及的An這字母字形(alphabetical glyph)代表的是存在的生命,這裏的Anna是否是古埃及字An的派生字則可再加予探究,死者之書裏的Ani則是人類個体演化成為神的名字,Anu的字意我們接下去要探討

＊＊處女座的靈糧＊＊

　　處女受孕的第一次誕生以黃道的西邊位置為代表,因為象徵靈之火的太陽總是在大地及水面西落,地及水又是靈魂化身的肉体的代表,生於水的自然人就黃道意義的層面而言是生於西邊,然後又在一個循環後於東邊重生出靈性之人,靈在大地身体的西方西落而讓人成為有形的個体,之後又在東面復活成神重生,古埃及經文[Pepi和太陽神Ra一起航向天空諸神誕生的東邊],神的死亡又復活是所有宗教的基本主題,就是化身(incarnation)然後又回至天上,亦可說是彌賽亞降至”埃及”而後他又出埃及,回至靈性,所謂的迦南地,進一步探究古冊可讓黃道星宮及聖經的關系真相大白,雙魚座顧名思義是魚之屋,

而處女座在占星學上則有[糧之屋house of bread]之意則少為人知,幾世紀前的春/秋分的年末時刻的歲差則是由象徵人在天上神性的天狼星來表示,正好在12月24的午夜時,這顆恆星正從子午線的顛頂點往南走,同一時刻正好是左手抱著基督小寶寶的處女座從東方地平線上往上昇,豫表了基督的身分要以人身出現,處女座的右手緊抱著拉丁文意思是麥穗尖的Spica星,象徵同樣的神祗將為人類帶來天上的糧,這個超自然的靈性異能就是耶穌說的[我父將天上來的真糧賜給你們(約翰福音6:32)] ,[我就是生命的糧,到我這來的必不餓(約6:35) ],現在我們知道處女座是糧是殿,雙魚座是魚之殿,

　林前15:47[頭一個人出於地,屬土;第二個人出於天]保羅告訴我們,我們有自然的肉身身体及靈性身体二個層面,林前6:19[身子就是聖靈的殿],人身就是靈糧及肉魚的雙重之殿堂,亡者之書提到的荷羅斯的準則是[祂的誕生是出於死亡之殿並於黃昏出現],靈魂要化身時亦合此準則,古代經典的密意是指靈魂藉由死亡而化身進入肉身,藉由死亡而得到重生復活,或者是說被釘的基督之墓及他再生時的子宮,當然古埃及人對天体運行不同階段的軌跡都有其神學意義上的名稱,又例如古埃及的Anu城用希臘話稱則成了Heliopolis(太陽城),該城是每年慶祝荷羅斯/歐歷西斯神復活的地方,Nu的意思是天上之母或是從虛無創造的深淵, A如同許多否字字意開頭的意思,而有[否定,無]之意,Anu這字成了雙重虛無的意思,因此是無無得有,即是有形的宣告,因此是地上有形的必死的肉身,同樣地,純潔處女的意識死去復而再生,如同舊約裏所說的[我擲倒死亡,而後又復生]

　靈魂由水的深淵底處的Nun(Nu的陽性字体)生出,Nun就是原始混沌未開的空間,約書亞此字的意思是希伯來語的[(耶和華)拯救],耶穌的希伯來意思則是[耶和華拯救],意思都是一樣的,約書亞此字譯成希臘語就是[耶穌](啟導本聖經348頁,約書亞記導讀),約書亞記1:2[嫩Nun的兒子約書亞],

Nu(中性),Nun嫩(陽性),Nut(陰性)都是遍及太虛的虛無(Cosmic Negative),生命在每次循環的結局重整而回到它原來單位的完全性時,是呈現陰性的(Negative),它就是嫩;當靈/肉(Matter)未分時,它是中性的,要宣告它潛在的生命性的時候,就要打破它的單位而藉靈肉的雙重結合去建立陰陽太極合体(positive negative Tension)而分衍出無限的生養眾多；原始的海洋母親產生無盡的水族魚世界,要繁衍生命的個体一樣要分成多樣化的不同的子代,

這就是創世紀17:2上帝要亞伯拉罕的後代[極其繁多], 9:1[要生養眾多]如天上繁星,神聖的生命初生由麵包作象徵,以魚作重生的象徵,耶穌用[五餅,二魚(馬可福音6:38)]餵飽五千人的故事可解釋成,既然麵包(糧餅)的象徵與第一自然肉体人的處女座有關,五餅可說就是五種感官知覺,二魚代表的二種性質則是重生時的靈/肉結合時而重生的靈性誕生。希伯來字母的Mem就是水。

　(插入)請注意,每個泰文字母開頭發音都有一個對應的字意,例如字母Gakai本身的意思是公雞,取頭音G,此字母在句中就是英文的g,希伯來字母有類似此系統的字母意義,而Nun本身就是希伯來第16字母,意思就是「魚」,舊約約拿書裏的大魚(鯨)吞約拿,及福音書裏的耶穌自比約拿在魚肚裏而要如此一樣地復活,講的未必都是字面以文害義的粗淺字義,更別談缺乏史證的耶穌是否真的就是史實了！古代教父把基督比作大魚或鯨而信徒是小魚,搞的都是承接古埃及觀念的把戲,[耶穌說,我要叫你們得人如得魚(馬可福音1:17)]基督的惡網要網住心靈插上十字架而成為無能獨立思考的心靈墳墓：基督徒(此段由譯者據自已所知而自行添加)

＊＊抄襲古埃及的五餅二魚＊＊　

　死者之書(Book of the Dead)正好把Anu城描敘成[生養繁衍糧食(Bread)之地],福音書裏的源源不斷的五餅二魚奇蹟故事的原型正是來自古埃及的冊籍,保羅說[我們發展出基督的心志之前,則仍受屬世的元素(elements)的綑綁],這個元素的字眼出現過七次,耶穌表面上粗淺的福音書生平記述都是把古埃及寓言複製而重新包裝上猶太外衣,完完全全不是史實的人物；猶太人繼承人古埃及智慧並僭用了它的文獻,處女座是糧屋的象徵,猶太人吸收了埃及的Anu名字,並套上天象的意涵,希伯來語的[屋Beth]加上
Anu就成了[Bethnau],很普遍的語言學的事實會讓你知道,希臘文及古埃及文結尾的u譯成英文時都是成為y,這就是福音書裏的地名[伯大尼Bethany(約翰福音11:1)]的由來,伯大尼的意思正是[糧屋]也就是處女座的象徵,

　路加福音2:15寫到偶像耶穌的出生地[伯利恆Beth-lehem],希伯來語[lehem麵包]加上[Beth屋]伯利恆就是[糧屋],一樣是在講占星學裏由處女座首生的肉身,伯大尼/伯利恆二城相距不到15公里,耶穌12門徒裏的漁夫[西門彼得 赤著身子,聽見是主來,就束上外衣,跳進海裏(約翰21:7)]而更早的埃及提到的12人則是[木匠,播種者,收割者,採果者,水手,槳手,建築者,水泥匠,陶匠]，偶像耶穌最後一個奇蹟是讓西門彼得[網滿大魚...網卻沒破(約翰21:11)],偶像要門徒[得人如得魚(可1:17)]，占星學裏的約旦河是從南魚座
(Sothern Fish)的口中往北流至獵戶座腳下的流向,獵戶座象徵基督神性,此流向象徵人的生命流向往神性的腳下方向去發展,基督信仰者的主教的法冠(Mitre)正是魚形嘴;在早期的羅馬基督徒墓穴裏的基督像的前額則是雙魚交叉成 X 形,羅馬人幾世紀以來也仿效早期基督徒的[小魚教派成員Pisciculi],特土涼神父及奧古斯汀都把教徒比喻成小魚,而基督則是鯨/大魚,希臘人則把基督視作魚(ICHTHYS)的化身

　他們把聲稱是彌賽亞身分的人都冠上ICHTHYS的頭銜,甚至不去理會基督教運動思潮可還沒推動他們的彌賽亞是個化作人形的救主,古代以黃道循環為基準而配上彌賽亞的人物名字及細緻的代表類型,古代占星家見太陽進入雙魚座時,就會向即將到來的神力化身的ICHTHYS致敬,

　福音書裏的所謂耶穌就是雙魚座之子,耶穌/約書亞的希伯來意思都是[拯救],遠古混沌太空用古埃及的話來講,就是Nun(嫩之水,天一神水的古埃及版本,舊約約書亞記1:2"嫩"是約書亞的父親),基督故事的原型：古埃及的荷羅斯神正是在Anu該城施行奇蹟,讓他父神歐歷西斯復活,Anu被抄襲成[伯大尼]理由已講過,拉撒路復活的故事裏,發生在那裏呢?你答對了！當然是以色列抄襲版的Anu[伯大尼(約翰福音
11:2)],拉撒路就往在該城(約11:2),偶像一行人前往該處(約11:18)要讓拉撒路復活;

　與荷羅斯同為三位一体之一的歐歷西斯的古代稱號還叫「Asar」,尊呼神名的時候都加上冠詞(如英文的the,a,an)而古代習慣用法則是用陽性定冠詞加在前面,例如希臘文稱呼的神則成[Ho Theos],西班牙文的陽性定冠詞el 正好是希伯來文的[神],用定冠詞稱呼[這位歐歷西斯]就像是在喊[主 歐歷西斯],用基督徒的話表示就是[主耶穌];沿用古埃及Asar名稱的希伯來人要把異邦的神貶為人並成為自已的手下敗將(按：請見早期佛教/印度教諸菩薩之間的鬥法故事亦類同也)而用自已的話講則成為[El-Asar],然後再加上拉丁文習用結尾音us,asar又轉音成azar,起頭的e消逝,就成了福音書裏的Lazarus拉撒路

　(插入)[聖經的神話及欺騙Deception & Myth of the Bible]作者Llyod Graham指稱古埃及的荷羅斯神讓已死的木乃伊El-Azar-us復活,基督教編造福音書的抄襲者連名字都沒大變動而成了拉撒路復活的故事,Walker , Massey, Churchward等人的研究認為荷羅斯神的敵人源自該神自已的黑暗面,叫Set,是撒旦Satan的由來,荷羅斯神很無恥,居然學千年之後的新約裏的偶像耶穌一樣在曠野四十天而戰勝了撒旦,異教徒不愧是異教徒,古埃及人果然邪惡啊！耶路撒冷,意思是和平之城,埃及文獻裏早就有自已城市取名此名的,福音書裏的伯大尼(bethany)城,埃及早就有叫作Bethanu伯大努的城鎮,泰勒牧師的研究認為耶和華此名也是來自埃及的原音IAO(他文引畢)

　和古埃及的荷羅斯一樣在古埃及原汁原味原版的[伯大尼(應作Anu)]讓已經死去的[Asar拉撒路的正版]復活的盜版偶像耶穌就這樣成了不可思議的福音書裏的”歷史”史實呢！而更妙的是,舊約裏出現的祭司,就有一名叫[Azar](譯按:詳章節待查,知情者請提供章節讓真實知識流傳,感恩!)我們要引用一位對猶太史地/社會/宗教有著超常知識的法國神學家Renan他的作品[Life of Jesus]第309頁他提到說：
受耶穌鍾愛的他的兄弟Lazarus,或作Eleazar。無可推諉地這留下了拉撒路故事與西元前5千年的古埃及草紙提到的故事原型之間的連繫關係,很顯然的,只有約翰福音重新地把這古老的寓言寫入而其他三福音則刪掉這故事。Eleazar這個舊約人名亦是留下Azar的痕跡,歐歷西斯古老的另外名字Azar就化進
拉撒路的名字裏,歐歷西斯的妻子或姐妹叫艾西絲,又叫Meri,男神的女配偶會變成二個,一個配給較年長的荷羅斯(或歐歷西斯神),一個配給較年幼的荷羅斯,因此Meri也時亦以複數形的Merti出現,寫成拉丁文的陰性名詞就成為Mertae,而這就成了拉撒路故事裏的拉撒路的姐妹「馬大Martha(約翰福音11:1)
」,古埃及裏亦有二個馬利亞,或馬利亞及馬大。

　約翰福音11:1-2[有個病患叫拉撒路,住伯大尼,就是馬利亞和她姐姐馬大的村莊,這馬利亞就是那用香膏抹主又用頭髮擦他腳的;患病的拉撒路是她的兄弟]啟導本聖經1505頁針對本節注解：馬利亞是在12:
1--8用香膏抹主的女人,她是馬大的妹妹,拉撒路是她們的兄弟。
　　　　－－－－－－－－－－－－－
　＃　＃意義顯著的六個月＃　＃

　福音書裏的施洗約翰扮演的就是為了「準備重生之人/基督到來」的首生/自然人,他的象徵自然是以秋分時刻的[水之母親,處女座]表示,豫表了黃道循環另一面的六個月後的死亡/重生,又重生於[魚之母親
]的耶穌基督,福音書裏這些奇異的戲劇氛圍在在讓福音書的史實性的地基完全地顫動動搖！懷有施洗約翰的伊莉莎白(路加1:57)她剛好「有孕六個月(路加1:36)」的時候,天使告訴偶像耶穌的媽媽馬利亞,
告知她懷孕了(路加1:33-37)

　純粹由黃道星盤的角度來看的話,六個月的時間是終結必朽的生命而讓自然人回到成神之處的時間,為了加速這段時間而讓象徵靈性誕生的基督來到世間,編造福音書神話的作者讓伊莉莎白肚裏懷的施洗約翰[因妳(馬利亞)問安的聲音一入我耳,我腹的胎就歡喜跳動(路1:44)] 象徵性地表示馬利亞催生這個即將到來的,由自然首生的肉身人而再生成為靈性增長的耶穌；亙古就發生了的黃道天象運轉被沒有智識的大眾(按：應說是精心策劃而飽讀冊籍的古代教會教士)用來寫成一件歷史上假定它”發生”
過的偶像耶穌的福音神話信仰,

　保羅說[我們的舊人和他(偶像耶穌)同釘十字架使罪身滅絕,不再作罪的奴僕(羅6:6)]，[所種的是血氣的身体,復活的是靈性的身体;若有血氣的身体,也必有靈性的身体(林前15:44)]，[屬靈的不在先,屬血氣的在先,以後才有屬靈的(林前15:46)]換言之,他講的是要把肉慾的身体治死,方有靈性的誕生,也就是隨著由[水之母親 處女座]誕生的施洗約翰漸消，才能讓[Nun嫩的兒子 象徵靈性的耶穌]漸長,而在星圖上構成此消彼長的關係。約翰福音3:30施洗約翰說「他(偶像耶穌)必興旺,我必衰微」就是此意。(譯按：
本文原作者選用的英文聖經作 I must Decrease, but he must Increase;譯者查手頭從希臘文譯成日文
的JBS版新約聖書用字是 他將”榮”,而我”不得不衰”Ano kata wa Sakae(榮),watashi wa Otoroe
(衰)neba nara nai)該本JBS版新約聖書的國際圖書編碼ISBN4-8202-3205-3,台灣大學正門斜對面羅斯福路上的校園書房以前有售。
　　　－－－－－－－
　＃＃揭穿福音書的內在密碼＃＃

　任何一位有智識的讀者在這些語意學/占星學被揭露的福音書密意(Cryptographic form of Astro-
logical Symbolism)後,會去深思並首度看穿福音書裏要呈現的神學上的大原則,而不會反而被蒙蔽,他會了解到這些號稱是西元元年的”歷史”事件早就都寫在古埃及裏的古冊裏了,他會在一連串的反思後認知到基督教教條宣稱寫於40--80CE的四福音不過是把古埃及宗教經典套上猶太外衣而重製複造的
盜版品,基督徒歷代雖然瘋狂地想抹去所有先前異教來源的痕跡,然而我們仍在建立基督教教會系統上扮演關鍵重要人物的教會御用史家兼神父艾賽表(Eusebius)有名的教會史(Ecclesiastical history)
第二冊第17章講到在北埃及被稱為Therapeutae的猶太教艾賽尼派(Essenes)時的文字記錄：

　他寫道「這些古代的Therapeutae是一群基督徒,而他們的作品就是福音書及使徒書信(Epistles)」

　生於西元1年左右的Philo Judaeus在神哲學(Theosophical) 的基礎上把希臘柏拉圖主義,埃及的隱士主義(Hermeticism)及摩西式的猶太教混合在一起並在中東國家的神秘/靈性教派之間造成強力的刺激影響力,並為亞歷山大哲學作了鋪路工作,而先是Pantanus後又是Clement及傲裏艮又把這些東西帶進基督教信仰裏,許多敏銳的福音真相的追查者咸認這些所謂的四福音正典的來源不過是他們口中的尋常文件。關於基督教的真正的起源,我們最接近的答案該是,這些號稱1世紀的文件是把更為古代的神秘教派一直秘而不傳的東西彙整重製後而方予以流傳散佈,2世紀的法國首位主教Irenaeus就表示當時有許多的福音書充斥著,十七個世紀以來的基督教學者說明自已宗教的起源及人物的形成時,從未告知大眾這些在基督教之前的文獻及故事,這些東西才是形成人類宗教史上最狂熱而詭異的基督教的來源

　　宗教情緒的悸動,狂熱的教會的熱忱,對於超自然及奇蹟的期待引申而來的易受騙的狀態,天啟告知的所謂世界末日,對福音書裏的文字寓意的無知,這些實際上的氛圍造就了整個非哲思性,非智識性地產生基督教信仰的心態及心理,而又過了好一段時間後,希臘化的神祇名字Christos(基督)才又套上,古代教士狂熱地對異教的恨意,對音樂,詩,不屑一顧的不健康心態持續至今,我們把占星學上的加利利地方一群鄉巴佬的黃道占星歷史誤認作真實史實的愚行造就了人類史上持續了20個世紀的這個最污穢的迷信(Foulest superstition),有史以來不人道的野蠻行為,偏見,和心靈心理痴呆狀態(Mental Dementia),詭異的是,我們讀了這麼多的資料後,現代的智識者多半仍不能逃開它的魔咒的影響

http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/mns2brth.htm


MAN’S TWO BIRTHS



ZODIACAL SYMBOLISM IN THE

GOSPEL OF LUKE





ALVIN BOYD KUHN, PH. D.









* Electronically typed and edited by Juan Schoch for educational research purposes. This notice is not to be removed. I can be contacted at pc93@enlightenment-engine.net. I will be greatly indebted to the individual who can put me in touch with the Estate of Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn and/or any of the following: A. B. Kuhn’s graduation address at Chambersburg Academy "The Lyre of Orpheus", A. B. Kuhn’s unpublished autobiography, The Mighty Symbol of the Horizon, Nature as Symbol, The Rebellion of the Angels, The Ark and the Deluge, The True Meaning of Genesis, The Law of the Two Truths, At Sixes and Sevens, Adam Old and New, The Real and the Actual, Immortality: Yes—But How?, The Mummy Speaks at Last, Symbolism of the Four Elements, Rudolph Steiner's "Mystery of Golgotha", Krishnamurti and Theosophy.

I also would welcome any contact with someone who has any letters of Kuhn or has any personal knowledge of him. Thank you.

Recently (January 15, 2005) I was contacted by a 15 year old student of Upton High (state and city to be determined) who wanted to interview me in regards to the life of Sir Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam). The interview was conducted and this student asked me if there was anything else. This is what I relayed:

There is a nationally and worldwide known issue of a disabled person in my state (Florida) who is being subjected to attempted murder. Her name is Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo. The courts say that she is in a Persistent Vegetative State when in fact she is not, they lie. Videos were shown on CNN during a live feed that prove she is not comatose. She sits up in a chair. Her husband who lives with another woman for over 9 years and who has two children with this woman is trying to say that Theresa wants to die when in fact he has been denying her rehabilitation and therapy so that she can have her own voice and be back on to the road to her recovery. He has been with several women since he caused Theresa's incident and this is his latest live-in concubine who is in collusion with him to make Theresa dead. His attorneys are attempting to accomplish a heinous starvation/dehydration death on her for the third time. One of his attorneys wrote a book in which he talks about tearing out peoples feeding tubes and says he speaks to them by "soul speak" asking them if they want to die and they tell him along the lines "Yes, I want to die! Please kill me." The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast is holding her hostage for over 4 years. This feeding tube yanker attorney was chairman of the board of this hospice. This is the worst case of domestic terrorism happening in our country right now. While we are off in other countries helping helpless and disabled people the government has been remiss to save a human life from terrorism here in my state. There is a cover-up of mass proportions and I have the evidence on a CD to prove it. This message is to you and all of your classmates and teachers who may be reading this. Please contact others if you know of others who care to stop this murder. Perhaps you, or others, including activist friends, know people who have the power to stop what is happening here in my state or bring greater attention to what is going on. Contact me at pc93@enlightenment-engine.net or call me at 407-925-4141 and I will get whatever information you may need. Help me and others to stop the return of Nazi T4 days in Florida, the rest of the United States of America and the world. We must take a stand and make our voices heard.

Please join my Alvin Boyd Kuhn Yahoo!Group and Gnosis284! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlvinBoydKuhn/join : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosis284/join









Three ancient and long-discredited sciences have experienced a surprising renaissance in the modern day: symbolism, alchemy and astrology. The last particularly has come into widespread vogue, but on a basis which still inclines conservative positivism in science, scholarship and orthodox religion to regard it as closely allied with "popular superstition." In its predictive or "fortune-telling" aspect it is generally looked upon askance. But there is another facet of it in which it has pertinence and value that has not been recognized in its modern revival and on which perhaps its most legitimate claim to consideration should properly rest. This is its function as symbolic theology.



It is beyond question that the great ancient design of the zodiac is a wondrously conceived graph aimed to depict the structure of the Logos, the pattern or creative evolution, the essential constitution of the universe and the course of the current of life in the cosmos, and by analogy in man the microcosmic replica of the macrocosm. Almost infinite nuances of significance have been adumbrated in those twelve signs or houses of the zodiac and the thirty-six other constellations, as well as in the semantic pictorializations which ancient sagacity and an ingenuity born of a sapient understanding of the profounder truth of life conceived and drew around those star clusters in the heavens. The uranograph, or chart of the skies, was incontestably the first of all Bibles, pictorially edited. Not quite simply and patently, but still most luminously for the initiated who held the recondite keys to the symbolic lexicon of ancient writing, it can be affirmed that all Bibles are but amplifications and elaborations of the original volume of ideography that was first written on the open slate of the sky, then charted in the zodiac and the planispheres carved on the ceilings of ancient temples and later transferred to earth and inscribed in scrolls, tablets and parchments. Man, adjured the old Scriptures, was to fashion his new body of spiritual glory "after the pattern of the heavens," the frame of the heavenly or zodiacal man, the primal Adam



1



Kadmon. And a cryptic graph of the nature and history of this celestial Personage was sketched by the enlightened Sages in the configurated star groups. Zodiac comes from the Greek word zodion, meaning a small animal zootype, or living symbol of the microcosmic life of man, who is indeed made in the image and likeness of the Divine Man pictured in the cosmic heavens. Man’s little physical body is a miniature copy of the universal body of God. The illimitable frame of cosmic Man was outlined in the scroll of the skies, the solar systems and galaxies being living cell clusters in his immeasurable organism.



The almost endless intimations of vital significance inwrought into the structure of these Gestalt configurations carry the essence of the esoteric import of the Scriptures. But there is one group of zodiacal items that strikes so deeply into the heart of general theology that its constituent particulars are assembled here as a striking and challenging exemplification of the methodology of the archaic science which is in truth the "lost key to the Scriptures." This presentation will serve as introduction to a vast body of evidence which will prove beyond controversy that Biblical theology rests more completely on astrological symbology than has been discerned in any age since the ancient day. The republication of this outline will come as a matter of the greatest momentousness, enforcing as it must a new approach through a new avenue of technology to the proper interpretation of the Bibles, yielding a quite new and revolutionary orientation of their true meaning. These items trace the unsuspected and crucial significance of two of the twelve signs, Virgo and Pisces, in the heart of the New Testament narrative. Let the reader picture before him the circle of the zodiac, with the house of Virgo at the western or right end of the equatorial meridian line drawn horizontally through the center and intersecting the circle on the east and west, and with the house of Pisces directly opposite it on the left and eastern end. The simple fact that they stand opposite to each other and six months apart will presently be seen to dramatize cosmological and anthropological truth of the most basic and, in our present state of ignorance, astonishing pertinence and importance.



2



THE TWO MOTHERS OF THE CHRISTS



The exposition must begin with the perplexing and hitherto unexplained item of ancient religious myth that the Christs, the Sun-Gods, the Messiahs were generally allegorized as having had two mothers! How, one asks, can there possibly be rational significance in such a predication? It has been put out of serious consideration as just another of the extravagant conceptions of ancient primitive unintelligence, just some more of the rubbish of fantastic Pagan superstition. It will therefore come as a surprise and shock if an intelligent re-examination forces us to realize that in profundity of knowledge and semantic skill in portraying it ancient perspicuity so far surpassed our own in this field of anthropological science that we are found to be the ones still immersed in primitive superstition, not the ancients.



This dual maternal parentage of the Messianic characters should not have appeared so outlandish and bizarre, seeing that the Gospel Jesus himself, dramatic figure of the divine principle in man, categorically announced this very feature in declaring to Nicodemus that "you must be born again." The startled Nicodemus asks if this means that he must enter a second time into his mother’s womb and experience a second birth in the natural manner. Jesus, implying that this idea would be preposterous, replies that you "must be born of water and the spirit." It must be noted here that the Latin word spiritus, translated "spirit" in many passages, means also "air," "breath" or "wind." Taken in connection with the great basic usage in Scriptural symbolism of the four primary elements, earth, water, air and fire, this "air" symbol at once assumes a position of the deepest revelatory moment.



The body of the physical, natural first man, of the earth, earthy, was symbolically conceived as being composed of the two lower, or coarser of these four elements, earth and water; while air and fire, representing mind and spirit, commingled to constitute the higher, or spiritual man, the second Adam, or the Christ. Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus could then as meaningfully have been phrased "born of water and air." Thus we can see a new signification in the statement of John the Baptist, in which he uses three of the four elements to symbolize his meaning when he said that he, the forerunner of the greater Christ, baptizes us with the two lower elements, water and



3



earth (but omitting earth, which should have gone with it); but that the mightier power of spirit that is to supervene after his preparatory work has been accomplished, will baptize us "with the Holy Spiritus (air) and with fire."



Jesus thus affirms that we have two births, necessitating two mothers, and John adds the corroborating datum that we have two baptisms.



Since man’s spirit-soul is an indestructible fragment of God’s own eternal spirit, truly a tiny spark of that cosmic Intelligence and Love which we call the Mind of God, the ancient symbologists typified the divine element in man by fire, and in contrast, emblemed the lower human elements by water. The fiery essence of soul is housed in a tenement of flesh and matter, which is seven-eighths water by actual composition. The crossing of rivers and seas and the immersion of solar heroes in water in the olden mythologies, and the rite of baptism in organic religion signified nothing beyond the fact of the soul’s immersion in a physical body of watery composition in its successive incarnations.



Under the terms of this evolutionary condition man is distinctly a creature compounded of two natures, a "higher" spiritual and a "lower" sensual, a divine and a human, a mortal and an immortal, and by symbolism a fiery and a watery, the two being conjoined in a relationship of mutual beneficence, in the organic body of the lower physical self. Says Heraclitus: "Man is a portion of cosmic fire, imprisoned in a body of earth and water." Describing man, Plato wrote: "Through body it is an animal; through intellect it is a God." In creating man God implanted the germ of a fiery spiritual principle of conscious being in the watery confines of physical bodies. This is the truest description of man that anthropology can present. All problems spring from that foundation and for solution are referable back to it.



Man is, then, a natural creature and a god in combination. Our natural part administers to our spiritual part the rite of baptism by water; our nascent spiritual self is to give us the later baptism by (air and) fire. We are born first as the natural man; then as the spiritual, the latter crowning the former. Or we are born first by water, then by fire. Of vital significance at this point are two statements by St. Paul: "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural"; and "First that which is natural, then that which is spiritual." Again he says: "For the natural man comprehendeth not the things of the



4



spirit; neither can he." Of course he can not; for he is not yet at that higher mount of evolution, and he must be transformed, transfigured, lifted up into a superior world of conscious dimension before he can cognize spiritual things. Evolution will thus transform him, and nothing else will.



Utilizing astrological ground facts for the depiction of cosmic truths, the ancient astrologers localized the birth of the natural man in the zodiacal house of Virgo, and that of the spiritual man in the opposite house of Pisces. These, then, were the houses of the two mothers of life’s progeny. The first was the Virgo (Virgin) Mother, the primeval symbol of the "Virgin Mary" thousands of years before Christ. Virgo gave man his natural birth by water, and became known as the "Water-Mother;" Pisces, the Fishes by name, gave him his birth by the "fish," or in the sign of the Fishes, and was denominated the "Fish-Mother." The Virgin Mothers are all identified with water as symbol, and their various names, such as Meri, Mary, Myra, Myrrha, Miriam, Moira, Venus (born of the sea-foam stirred up between the knees of Jupiter as he waded through the seas), Tiamat and Thallath (Greek for "sea.") are designations for water or the sea. On the other side there are the Fish Avatars of Vishnu, such as the Babylonian Ioannes, or Dagon ("fish" in Hebrew is dag); and the goddesses Atergatis and Semiramis were actually called "fish-Mothers." Virgo stood as the mother of birth by water, or the birth of man the first, earthy, in a watery body. Pisces stood as the mother of birth by the spirit, or by fire, or the birth of man the second, described by St. Paul as "the Lord from heaven." Man’s physical body is the high product of a biological evolution that actually started in the ocean water! And the blood in man’s veins is still identical in chemical composition with sea water. Virgo was poetized as the Water Mother of the natural man; Pisces as the Fish Mother of the spiritual man. So Virgo was the first of the two mothers of the god-to-be in the life of mankind; Pisces was the second.



5



CONCEIVED IN HEAVEN--BORN ON EARTH



In spite of the presence of these significant data standing for all to read in mythology and the Scriptures, any profound grasp of the interior intimations was missed because the true relevance of the symbolic sense of both water and the fish had never been glimpsed. Prominent as the fish symbol has been in Christian literature of the inceptive period, no one has seemed to divine its enlightening cryptic import. It is of astonishing revelatory character. Water is the type of natural birth because all natural birth proceeds in and from water. All first life on our globe originated in sea water, and all vegetation must have water to maintain its life. The fish is a birth in and from water, and it therefore stands patently as the generic type of organic life issuing out of the inorganic! The fish typifies life embodied in a physical organic structure, subsisting in a sea of inorganic matter. Organic life is born out of the inorganic just as the fish is born out of the water. It is the child of the water-as-mother. And if organic life (the "Fish") is in its turn to become mother, its child will be mind and spiritual consciousness, son of the Fish Mother. Water is thus the mother of natural physical life, and organic physical body becomes the mother of later evolving divine mind.



Now, strangely enough, water is the type of another essence, which is even more than water a universal mother of life, namely matter. Matter is the virginal mother of all life in the aboriginal genesis. All things are generated in the womb of primordial matter, the "first old genetrix" of the Egyptians, Apt, Hathor, Meri, Isis. And it is by a consideration of the nature of matter and its evolution that we are enabled at last to arrive at a true comprehension of the double motherhood of the god nature. For this universal matter-mother is now known to exist in two vastly different states, at each of which, at two different levels, it generates its child. Primordial matter, the sea of (to us) empty space, is the first mother of all living forms. This is the primal "abyss of the waters" in Genesis. The Latin word for "mother" is our very word "matter," with one "t" left out--mater. And how close to "matter" is "water!" And matter organized and structuralized over patterns of divine conception is the second mother, genetrix of spiritual mind.



6



In the sagacious dramatism of arcane writing the two mothers were always presented in pairs. They were designated the "two mothers," or sometimes the "two divine sisters" of the god character. Or they were the wife and sister of the central deity, as Juno was wife and sister of Jupiter, and Isis was wife and sister of Osiris. Others were Venus, Ishtar, Cybele, Mylitta. In ancient Egypt they were first Apt and Neith, later Isis and Nephthys. Gerald Massey relates Neith to "net," the device to catch fish! Clues to their function are found in the great Egyptian Book of the Dead, and there it was that the mystery of this double motherhood of life was solved. For here it is revealed that the function of motherhood was, so to say, bisected into two phases, so that, of the two mothers, Isis and Nephthys, each was seen to have performed but one-half of the function of motherhood of the infant god, thus requiring the two of them to consummate the birth. For the text reads: "Isis conceived him; Nephthys gave him birth." Again, with a shift of the suggestive symbolism, it is said: "Isis bore him; Nephthys suckled him." Even with these elucidative data the full sweep of the true import was not caught until a further clarification was found in another verse, which ran: "Heaven conceived him; the Tuat brought him forth." With this came the brilliant flash of clear insight into the mystery. For "heaven" is precisely the place, or the state of the first matter-mother, the "firmament" of empty space, and in the bosom of this first mother form the unit potential of the seed of divine mind-to-be is conceived. All later potency of a godly mind is latent in the depths of sub-atomic matter. "The shape of things to come" in the evolution of universal life is archetypically conceived at the arc of the cycle when spirit and matter, as yet undifferentiated, are identical and homogeneous. Spirit yet slumbers in dreamless unconsciousness, and matter exists only as what the Hindus call Mulaprakriti, the "root of matter." All things are initially conceived in the innermost heart of primordial Being, where spirit as Father and matter as Mother are yet One. Being is then Father-Mother, not Father and Mother.



This is mirrored in the Egyptian statement that Isis conceived Horus, the Christ-to-be. Matter was the womb of the first conception, and Nephthys was to give birth to what Isis conceived. Isis is therefore the true Virgin of the world, because she is matter in its virginal state, matter still subsistent, and not yet existent, unable to be paired off as the opposite pole of spirit and hence unwed. As virgin, she has



7



not yet given birth to the Christ. That role will be performed by Nephthys, matter impregnated by spirit. Cosmically and evolutionarily speaking, Isis is the young girl who can not marry and bear the Christ; Nephthys is that same young girl grown to womanhood and able to produce her child. In the same sense in which we say that the child is father of the man it can be said that Isis is the mother of Nephthys. And we shall see that this legend of the two mothers, the second being the daughter of the first, is found intact in the New Testament Gospel story.



If heaven, in the sense of virginal matter, conceived the divine consciousness principle, what is the "Tuat" that brought it forth? It must be equivalent to Nephthys. This locality is the Egyptian designation for earth, or matter in its substantial evolved form which can finally bring spiritual consciousness to manifest expression. It is matter in its physical form. Isis was matter subsistent in the form of "empty space;" Nephthys was atomic matter, existent as visible structural form, or the "fish." The fish is seen to be the type of organic matter floating in the sea of inorganic first matter, the "waters of the firmament." We see the physical worlds floating about in the sea of empty space like fish in the water. The physical universe is that Great Fish in the sea of infinite Being which contains the germ of the Jonah consciousness (for Jonah is another figure of the Jesus or Christ consciousness) and which will transport it across the sea of evolving life and spew it out on the farther shore of higher Mind. This great universe is the second form of matter and hence is the second mother, Nephthys. It is the developed bodies of organic matter that give birth to the Logos in the macrocosm and to the Christos, a seed unit of that same Logos, in man the microcosm. Man’s physical body, with brain and nervous system organized to give expression to that grade of mind denominated the Christ consciousness, is the divine Fish of the mythologic tradition of early Christianity. One needs only to refer to the Greek designation of the Christos of the precessional period of Pisces as Ichthys the Fish to be amazed at the play of the symbolism in the ancient day precisely when Christianity was being formulated. For the sun had entered the sign of the Fishes about 255 B.C.



So under the conception of the divided function of motherhood it can be said that man’s future Christhood is conceived in the womb of Isis and brought to birth from the womb of Nephthys, the second mother, the immediate incubator and gestator of the Christly power



8



in the world. One might analogize the situation by thinking of a human child as first conceived in the minds, or in the love of its parents and later born from the womb of its physical mother. For this life has two births and must have a mother for each. It is conceived by the mother and born by the daughter. Life is spiritually conceived and physically born. Man is born first as man, by water, the sea of primordial matter, in whose depths he is conceived; then he is reborn later as god, by the fire of spirit, emerging with biological life out of the womb of the sea, the Water-Mother.



The two mothers can be sharply distinguished as these two forms of matter in the following delineation: the first or virgin mother is matter in its first creative form; invisible, inorganic, unsubstantial (in our sense) and subatomic. The second mother is matter in its later evolved form as visible, organic, substantial and atomic. The first mother, virgin though she is, generated her child, organic matter, who by virtue of her "immaculate conception" was confusedly still called "virgin." And this daughter, grown to adulthood by evolution, became the second, or "Fish Mother," and in her turn produced, not now a daughter, but her Son, the masculinity indicating a spiritual and not a further physical progeny, the birth of Mind from matter.



As hinted a moment ago, this genealogy or divine lineage is found in the New Testament of Christianity. The first mother, corresponding to Isis is Anna, and the second mother is her daughter Mary, who bears the Christos, Jesus. Anna and Mary are the Isis and Nephthys of the Christian dispensation. And it is a question whether the Christian Anna and the Hebrew Hannah are not immediate derivatives from the Egyptian An, Ani, Anu. An was an alphabetical glyph for existent being. Ani was the name of the human entity evolving to deity in the Book of the Dead. Anu will come to astonishing significance a little farther on.



9



THE HOUSE OF BREAKING BREAD



The first, or virgin birth was depicted as taking place on the western side of the zodiac, in the house or womb of the Virgin Mother, Virgo. This allocation was due to the fact that it is in the west that the sun, universal symbol and embodiment of the fire of spirit, descends each evening into the earth and water that represented the body in which the soul incarnated, this body itself being composed of those two elements, earth and water. So man is, zodiacally, born in the water, as natural man, on the western side; and is to be reborn, or regenerated, as spiritual man, at the end of the cycle, on the eastern side. Spirit’s descent into water (of the body) on the west makes it man physical; its later resurrection on the east makes it man spiritual, man deified. Says the text of old Egypt: "Pepi saileth with Ra to the eastern side of heaven, where the gods are born." This is the death and resurrection of the god, the basic theme in all religions. It is simply incarnation and return to heaven. It is the descent of Messiah into "Egypt" and his exodus back to spirit, historicized in the Scriptures as "Canaan."



Further browsing in the ancient tomes brings to light links of connection between the zodiacal pictorialization and the Bible. The chief one is found in the symbol of bread in connection with both Virgo and Pisces. Pisces is the house of the Fishes by name, but it is not commonly known that in the astrological portraiture Virgo was the house of Bread. This is indicated by several items of the typology. Many centuries ago in the precession of the equinoxes the end of the year was marked by the position of the great Dog Star Sirius, brilliant heavenly symbol of the divinity in man. Precisely at midnight of December 24 this bright sun stood on the meridian line running from the zenith to the south. At the same moment there was rising on the eastern horizon the constellation of the Virgin, bearing in her left arm the Christ child, symbol of the Christhood coming to function in man; and in her right hand she clasped the great star Spica (Latin: a head or "spike" of wheat), symbol of that same deity coming as the celestial food for man. It must be remembered that the Gospel Christ told us that, if we would have eternal life, we must virtually eat his body as our divine food, and drink his blood. Hence typism represented him as coming in the form and nature of man, the human babe; and com-



10



ing as spiritual food emblemed by wheat. The Gospel Christos describes the supernal gift of the spirit in the words: "This is that bread which came down from heaven, that if a man eat of it he shall hunger no more." Jesus took the same symbol, a loaf, and, breaking it into fragments, gave a morsel to each of his disciples, saying it was his (spiritual) body, broken for them.



We now have Virgo established as the House of Bread and Pisces as the House of the Fishes. The characterization of the two houses can now be brought along to a more specific evolutionary reference. Just what are these "houses"? What do they represent? As already set forth, they are poetic graphs for the two states of matter. But now they are to be shown to stand for something in immediate relation to man’s life. It should not appear too extravagant a declaration if the evidence warrants our assertion that in the ultimate resolution of their meaning, they are in the allegory to be considered as the human body itself! For these physical bodies of ours consist of matter in both its visible and invisible forms. As St. Paul tells us, we have a natural and a spiritual body. Man’s body itself houses the two mothers. The human body is this double house of Bread and of Fish.



The next link is seen when it is considered that the physical body is for the soul the house of death and in its regenerative phase, the house of rebirth. It is the house into which the spirit descends and in which it suffers a more or less complete obscuration of its powers in the darkness of its tomb of matter. It is the house in which for an initial period it lies in a state of relative "death," out of which it is to arise in a new birth, or resurrection, on the opposite side of the cycle. A significant passage from the Book of the Dead recites, alluding to the Horus (Christ) principle: "Who cometh forth from the dusk and whose birth is in the house of death." This applies to the incarnating soul. In the recondite esoteric sense of the archaic Scriptures the soul "dies" on entering the body in incarnation, but has a resurrection from this "death" and its rebirth, or the tomb of the crucified Christ and the womb of his second birth.



As we could expect, the Egyptians had a name for the body as the locus of these evolutionary transactions, which carry the central meaning of all theology. This name now rises out of the dim mists of ancient Egyptian religious lore to enlighten all modern Biblical



11



studentship. This city of the body, wherein the sun of soul sank to its death on the cross of matter to re-arise in a new generation, was called the city of the sun, which in Greek became Heliopolis, but was in the Egyptian Anu. The name was, of course, given to an actual Egyptian town, where the rites of the death, burial and resurrection of Osiris, or Horus, were yearly enacted. But the name bore a theological significance before it designated a geographical city,--as indeed did most Biblical names of localities.



The significant name is obviously composed of Nu, the name for the Mother-Heaven, or empty space, or the abyss of nothingness out of the bosom of which creation emanates. The A (alpha privative) means, as it does in thousands of words, "not." It is prefixed to a host of words to negate an affirmative meaning, as a-theistic, a-moral, a-symmetrical, a-mnesia. A-nu would then mean literally "not-nothingness," or a world of concrete actuality. The negation of a negative posits an affirmative. It refers thus to our world of physical manifestation. Precisely such a world it is in which units of virginal consciousness go to their "death" and again rise out of it. Says God in the Old Testament: "I cast down to death and I raise up again." Anu is then the physical body of mortals on earth. The soul descends out of the waters of the abyss, or the Nun, which is simply space in its primordial undifferentiation. So Nu (neuter), Nun (masculine), Nut (feminine) is the cosmic negative, the name and sign of all non-being. When life is reintegrated at the end of each cycle of out-going and return in the completeness of its restored unity, it is negative. It is the Nun. When it is undifferentiated as spirit and matter, it is neuter. To manifest its potential life it must disintegrate its unity, segregate itself into the duality of spirit and matter, establish positive-negative tension and from that split up into infinite multiplicity.



Here we are brought face to face with the important Biblical sense of the word "multiply." To exhibit its infinite creative resources, life must multiply itself endlessly. The unitary life of deity must break itself up into infinite fragments if it is to fill empty space with a multitude of worlds and beings of diversified natures. The primal sea, or Mother must engender a multitudinous progeny, to spawn the limitless schools of organic "fish-worlds." This is the meaning of the promise given to Abraham that his seed should "multiply" until it filled the earth with offspring countless as the sands and the stars. And if the life divine was symbolized by bread as the type of the first



12



birth, and by fish as the type of the second, then we might expect to find in old religious typology the allegory of a Christ personage multiplying loaves and fishes to feed a multitude! Should we be astonished then, when we do find that the Gospel Jesus does this very thing? The leads to the significance of the two numbers woven into the story are not too clear. But since the bread symbol pertains to Virgo, mother of the natural man, the five loaves may have been intended to refer to man’s five senses, while the two fishes could have represented the two natures unified by the second birth.



This is astonishing enough in all conscience. But even it yields in wonder to the next item of comparative religion data, which came to our notice as a further tie between the Bible and antecedent Egyptian mythology. Who can adequately estimate the seriousness of the challenge which this finding of scholarship throws down to Gospel historicity? For a thrilling discovery indeed it was which brought to notice a passage in the Book of the Dead that referred to Anu as "the place of multiplying bread!"



Here, then, in the long-silent tomes of old Egypt was found the original, the prototype, of the "miracle" of the loaves and the fishes in the Gospels of Christianity. In the light of this correlation of material it is seen that a new and enlightening meaning must be read into this New Testament episode. The revelation indeed makes it necessary to lift the incident quite out of the realm of history and orient it into that of allegory. For at last we are given a lens of proper focus through which to read aright, for the first time in centuries, the hidden sense of the Gospel narrative. We see that Anu, as the physical body, is the place wherein the unity of the Christly power is broken into an infinite number of fragments, which are distributed out among a multitude of God’s children enhungered after a three-days fast. This latter detail can readily be taken as referring to the deprivation of spiritual food suffered by souls in their sojourn in the three elemental kingdoms, mineral, vegetable and animal, before attaining to the plane of mind. St. Paul lends authority to this rendering in saying that before we develop the Christ-mind, we are in bondage to the elements (in several passages the "elementals") of the world, meaning the powers of nature as yet unillumined by mind.



Here are all the components of the inner meaning of the Christian Eucharist: the broken, but multiplied fragments of the body of the god, distributed to feed hungry humanity. And as humanity is com-



13



posed of twelve groups of conscious units struggling on the road to divinization, there were gathered up twelve baskets of fragments. For in the synthesis of all powers to be evolved in the process of deification, the twelve aspects of the Christ consciousness are finally reintegrated, or "gathered up" in one climactic unity.



One must ask what it can mean to the future of Christianity to realize now that this episode of the ostensible life of Jesus is found to be the Judean republication of an antique Egyptian allegory, completely unhistorical in character.

































14



THE HOUSE OF FISH



But new involvements arise and take us on into still more startling disclosures. The Hebrews fell heir to the Egyptian wisdom and appropriated Egyptian material. They picked up the name Anu, and, fitting it back into its zodiacal setting as Virgo, they called it the House of Bread. This led to their adding to the name Anu their word for "house," which is beth. This yields us Beth-Anu. It is a fact of common philological knowledge that when the ancient Greek and Egyptian "u" in a word is transferred into English, it is invariably rendered as "y." For instance, the Greek word for "water" is hudor. In all English words it becomes hydro. Shifting the "u" of Anu to the "y", Anu becomes Any, so that Beth-Anu now stands before us as Bethany of the Gospels! Bethany, then, is just the sign of Virgo, as "the House of Bread," the home of the great star Spica, the head of wheat!



But let us say "House of Bread" in ordinary Hebrew. What further amazement strikes us here as we find this reads Beth-lehem. For "bread" in Hebrew is lehem. The Christ had the first of his two births in Bethany, or Bethlehem, the astrological "House of Bread,"--the human body! And this, be it noted at last, is the only place where it can be of any benefit to humanity.



Later it seems that the two signs, Virgo and Pisces, and their symbols, bread and fish, were almost interchangeably confused or commingled in symbolic imagery. This was likely, in fact almost inevitable, since the two signs represented the same human body as the two houses in which soul died and was reborn, and the two processes are just the two phases of the one operation.



If Pisces is, then, the "house" in which the Christ in man comes to his birth, it is altogether pertinent to ask if there are evidences in the Bible or Christianity that Jesus was represented under any of the characteristics of the fish typology. Here we encounter material enough to provide another nine-days wonder. For Jesus is decorated and haloed by the Piscean symbolism on every hand. His twelve disciples were "fishermen!" In earlier Egyptian depiction the twelve were at one time or another carpenters, reapers, harvesters, fruit gatherers, sailors, rowers, builders, masons, potters or keepers of the twelve treasures of light. Jesus instructed Peter to find the gold in the fish’s mouth; his last "miracle" was the net-breaking draught of fishes; he declared that he would make them "fishers of men." Also astrological ingenuity had delineated the River Eridanus (Jordan) as



15



issuing from the mouth of the constellation of the Southern Fish and flowing north to the very feet of Orion, starry symbol of the Christ, intimating that the stream of life issues forth from the organic physical life of man and runs right up to the foot of divinity. The Bishop’s mitre in Christianity is in the shape of the mouth of a fish. In the catacombs under Rome the symbol of the two fishes crossed in the "X" form was displayed on the forehead of the Christ image, at its feet, or on a plate on the alter before it. And the Romans for several centuries dubbed the early Christians Pisciculi, "Little Fishes," members of the "Fish-Cult." Augustine and Tertullian both likened the Christian laity to "little fishes" in the sea, Christ being the Great Fish, or Whale. And perhaps the crowning datum in all this piscatorial Christianity is the fact that the Greeks denominated the Jesus Avatar figure as Ichthys, the Fish. They would doubtless have alluded to any claimant at that time for the mantle of Messianic messengership under the title of Ichthys, even if the Christian movement had not thrust on the world the Gospel character of Jesus as humanized Savior. For ancient arcane science, resorting ever to subtle types of representation, and all grounded on the circle of the zodiac, attached to the Messianic figure the name, title and features of the zodiacal house in which the sun stood at the time, its sojourn in each sign being two thousand one hundred and sixty years. When the sun was entering Pisces ancient astrological observance would in any event have saluted the embodiment of the coming god-power as Ichthys.



Still other startling correlations come to view. As has been here delineated, the Christ is the offspring or creation of Divine Mind, first in the innermost bosom of Spirit-Matter, then entified in organic bodily structure. Primeval space, as has been seen, was in Egyptian terms the Nun, the "waters of the Nun." What Bible student does not know of "Joshua, son of Nun"? But so far has ignorance and obscurantism gone with its deadly work in Biblical literalism that hardly any one knows with definiteness that Joshua is just a variant (one of some ten or twelve) form of "Jesus." The phrase has actually been found written in ancient texts as "Jesus, son of Nun." At any rate there is no question and there can be none, that Joshua is Jesus, no less. This asserts that both names in various versions of the Messianic legend stood for the one same typal figure representing man’s coming deity. But the wonder increases when we turn to the Hebrew alphabet and find that, while "M" is called and spelled "Mem," and means "water," "N" is called and spelled "Nun," and means, of all astound-



16



ing things, "fish." Jesus, then, is son of Pisces, the Fish-sign; as indeed he is in the Gospels themselves.



And Horus, the Egyptian Christ, who is identical with the Jesus of the Gospels in some one hundred and eighty particulars, performed at Anu a great "miracle." He raised his father Osiris from the dead, calling unto him in the cave to rise and come forth, intimating that he was not dead but only sleeping. Anu, as has been seen, became Bethany of the Gospels; and it was at Bethany that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead! And we run into another amazing link when, through Egyptian sources, we are enabled to establish the identity of Lazarus. This is close to the greatest of all the marvels in this chain of comparative data. For we find that the ancient designation of Osiris was Asar. Now the Egyptians consistently expressed reverence for deity by prefixing the definite masculine article, "the," to the name of the chief of their gods. This was Osiris. Just as the Christians say, or should say, the Christ, they said the Osiris. And there applies here another point of language usage not discovered by scholars, but pertinent to our elucidation. It is that the definite masculine article, "the," connoted deity in ancient writing. Our definite article, "the," is the root of the Greek word for God, the-os, to which the Greeks prefixed their masculine article, ho theos. The Spanish article masculine, el, is the Hebrew word for God. And the Greek masculine article ho, is a Chinese word for deity. To say "the Osiris" was equivalent to saying "Lord Osiris."



So when the Hebrews took up the Egyptian names and titles they converted the name of "the Osiris," or "Lord Osiris," directly into their own vernacular, with the result emerging as "El-Asar." Then in turn the later Romans, speaking Latin, took up the same material that had come to them through Hebrew hands and to "El-Asar" they added the common Latin termination of the second declension masculine nouns in which most Roman men’s names ended, namely "us;" and the result was now "El-Asar-us." In time the initial "E" wore off, as the scholars phrase it, and the "s" in "Asar" changed into its sister-letter "z," leaving us holding in our hands the "Lazarus" whom Jesus raised from the dead at Bethany! So the allegorical raising of the Egyptian Osiris from death by his son, the Christ of Egypt at the Egyptian Anu became the raising from death of the Hebrew Lazarus by the Palestinian Christ at the Judean Bethany, and what was sublime spiritual dramatism became incredible "history."



To support the contention that this derivation is not a fanciful invention or sheer coincidence, we find the Egyptian "Azar" reappearing in the names of two of the Hebrew Priests in the Old Testament,



17



Azar-iah and El(e)azar. The -iah (or -jah) appended to deific names substantially equated the prefixed El in Hebrew usage. But a further and far more authoritative confirmation of the linkage was found in one place in Renan’s famous Life of Jesus (page 308). The French theologian displayed an extraordinary knowledge of Judean history, geography, sociology and religion, and in connection with the elucidation here presented this citation from his great book confronts the Christian exegesis with a challenge which it may be difficult to fend off. We quote the passage as follows:



"The village of Bethany, in particular, situated at the summit of the hill upon the incline which commands the Dead Sea and the Jordan, at a journey of an hour and a half from Jerusalem, was the place especially beloved by Jesus."



Following this a numeral directs us to the note appended at the bottom of the page, in which the reference is to Bethany:



"Now El-Azerie (from El-Azir, the Arabic name of Lazarus) in the Christian texts of the Middle Ages, Lazarium."



On the next page (309), speaking of Mary he states:



"Her brother Eleazar, or Lazarus, was as much beloved by Jesus."



Here is indisputable evidence that the Egyptian connection with the name of Bethany clung to the town up to the Middle Ages. Since it is agreed widely that John’s Gospel is far more mystical and spiritual and less historical than the other three, it is quite apparent that this reprint of an ancient Egyptian allegory would be more likely to be included in John’s Gospel and omitted from the three synoptic ones. What can it mean to Christian theology that the story of the raising of Lazarus was extant in Egyptian papyri possibly 5000 years B.C.?



Nor was Osiris, masquerading under the name of Lazarus, the only Egyptian personage present at the scene of this supposed Christian "miracle." Isis, the wife and sister of Osiris, under her ancient designation of Meri, was present also. As the feminine counterpart of the male deity was dualized to match the doubling of Horus as Horus the Elder (otherwise Osiris) and Horus the Younger, so the Meri name was sometimes pluralized, becoming Merti. In Latin feminine form this became Mertae. But in Hebrew it resolved into what in English was rendered as Martha. So even in the ancient Egyptian transaction there were present the two Maries, or Mary and Martha, the sisters of "Lazarus."



18



A SIGNIFICANT SIX MONTHS



All this sets the stage for the crowning item in the correspondence. In the Gospel drama John the Baptist enacts the role of the first-born or natural man, coming first to prepare the physical ground of evolution for the advent of the second Adam, or Christ. He would therefore stand in the allegory as the son of the Water Mother, Virgo, and under the astrological symbolism would be born at the autumn equinox, or in his mother’s house, which stands as that station in the zodiac. On the other side of the cycle of descent, "death" and resurrection, would stand Jesus, the Christos, son of the Fish Mother, born in his mother’s house of the Fishes. These houses are six months apart on the zodiacal chart!



Hence the whole edifice of Gospel historicity trembles under the impact of the strange dramatic circumstance, given in the first chapter of Luke’s Gospel, that the Annunciation to Mary of her conception of the coming Christ by the Holy Spirit came in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptist. So we can see what the myth-makers devised for discerning intelligence in the allegory in Luke. The natural man, having covered the zodiacal "six months" between his conception and the date of his quickening into spiritual status in his evolution, was dramatized as being "quickened" at a point exactly opposite from the point of the beginning of his life. Six months on the chart would mark the end of an epoch begun opposite it. Six months, speaking purely zodiacally, would terminate the period of mortal life and bring the natural man to the place of his deification. At that point he would be represented as being quickened from natural to spiritual life. So then, according to the Lukan account, when the mother of the true spiritual Christ, who had just been impregnated by the Holy Ghost, came into the presence of the first mother, carrying her child at the figurative completion of his cycle of physical evolution, and awaiting only the advent of the spiritual Lord to be quickened into a new order of exalted being, he was dramatized as manifesting this reawakening by the statement that "he leaped in his mother’s womb." The Luke narration makes it clear that the conception of Jesus had just taken place when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth and found her at the six months stage of her pregnancy. Mary’s coming



19



into the presence of Elizabeth is made the occasion of the natural man’s leaping in his mother’s womb. When the Christos comes to the natural man the latter leaps into the higher kingdom of spirit.



It is but a simple matter of arithmetic to note that the last three months of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John coincided with the first three of Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, bringing the birth of Jesus just six months after that of John! So Luke has it. But it was in the zodiacal chart some thousands of years before it could have "happened" in Judea. It had occurred zodiacally long before it could have occurred historically. And the implication is overmastering that the supposed historical occurrence is but a presumption of ignorance based on the zodiacal when that became circulated as history among the unintelligent masses.



The final link of significant data, now to be presented is by no means a minor one. St. Paul declares that we come to birth spiritually only as we die carnally, meaning that the quantum or quality of divine character in us grows in proportion as the quantum of raw nature decreases. We increase deifically as we decrease humanly; the god gains in power as the animal dies. So the structure of the allegory depicted the spiritual man, Jesus, son of Nun, the "Fish," as increasing, while John, son of Virgo, the Water Mother, decreases in stature. Astrologically, as a star or constellation sinks below the horizon in the west, its opposite star or constellation would be rising in the east. As John, type of the first, the natural man, went down (having completed his mission of preparing the way for his greater successor), Jesus, type of the spiritual birth, rose on the world. So the narrative has John saying: "I must decrease, but he must increase." In the descent of soul into the body spiritual power decreases as physical life increases. But on the reverse arc of the cycle, or evolution, the physical (John) decreases as the Christ power increases in its new round of growth.



20



THE CHALLENGE TO CHRISTIANITY



No intelligent reader can peruse this assemblage of semantic data without being profoundly impressed by at least two considerations of the most momentous gravity. He will see first that the great principles of theology were presented, rather are concealed, it would be permissible to say, under the cryptographic forms of astrological symbolism. Then he will be impressed beyond measure by the incontestable evidence of the fact that Biblical events he had assumed were historical occurrences in the first century A.D., were already written in time-worn books of the ancient Egyptians thousands of years before, and that they were there not as objective history but as spiritual allegory. And in the train of reflection that would follow upon these recognitions, how could he avoid asking of his intelligence the question fraught with critical moment for the Christian faith: were then the Gospels and Epistles of the Christian New Testament compositions originally written between the years 40 to 80 of that first Christian century? In the face of the evidence here assembled, can there be much doubt that these Gospels and Epistles were republications of old Egyptian religious scripts, revamped and redacted doubtless by Judean influences, in the first century of our era? Does Christian history make any authoritative pronouncement that would throw light on the question? In spite of fanatical zeal to obliterate all trace of the derivation of its literary heritage from antecedent Pagan sources, there has been permitted to survive for us a statement made by the man who himself was chiefly instrumental in founding the Christian ecclesiastical system, the Christian historian and bishop, Eusebius. In his famous Ecclesiastical History, chapter 17 of Book II, treating of the Essenes, called Therapeutae in northern Egypt, he wrote:



"These ancient Therapeutae were Christians and their writings are our Gospels and Epistles."



As if to corroborate this declaration of the fourth-century Christian protagonist the Dead Sea scrolls now rise out of the mists of pre-Christian time to certify beyond cavil that the New Testament documents were products of the antecedent Pagan religions.



If Eusebius’s statement and the evidence of the scrolls (and much other data) point to the ancient origin of the Scriptures, there would



21



then arise the further crucial question: for what reason were ancient Egyptian documents of secret esoteric and occult spiritual lore, embodying the innermost teachings of the Magian and Sabean astrological science, brought forth from their age-long sacred custodianship of the heirophants of the Mysteries and spread broadcast to the world in that first Christian century? The answer to this query is many-sided and complicated. But among other influences there was one certainly that can be traced with considerable distinctness. This was the work of a philosopher too little credited with importance. Philo Judaeus was born at or about the year 1 A.D. He labored in the early and middle portions of the first century to effect a syncretism of Greek Platonism, Egyptian Hermeticism and Mosaic Hebraism on occult theosophical bases. His work could have given a powerful stimulus to the cultism of mystico-spiritual science throughout the mid-Eastern countries, as it apparently did lay the foundations for the great Alexandrian philosophical center which, under the headship first of Pantanus, then Clement and Origin, introduced these elements into Christianity. In the conjunction of his effort with the currents of spiritual force emanating from such groups as the Essenes and the Gnostics, we are as near to a correct answer as we perhaps ever shall be to the question of the origin of Christianity and the publication in the first century of documents long in existence, but never disseminated beyond secret guardianship in the occult societies until that time.



It therefore seems certainly to be within the bounds of distinct plausibility, indeed of imminent probability, that the rise of Christianity is to be explained on the truly human and rational grounds of a movement that was galvanized into momentum as the result of the first wide republication of the secret and sacred books of the hierarchy of very ancient Egypt. Many astute investigators of the provenance of the Gospels have been driven to the conclusion that the four included in the New Testament canon were traceable to and based upon what they are pleased to call a "common document," which obviously must antedate those building upon it. Almost to a certainty this hypothesis points in the direction of a true solution of the problem of Gospel origins. Irenaeus, first Christian Bishop of Gaul (France) in the second century, states that there was a multitude of Gospels afloat in his day. It would be in accord with some positive data and many other well-grounded assumptions if one were to posit the thesis that the four Gospels of the canon were based not necessarily on any



22



one "common document," but on the collective esoteric tradition coming down from old Egypt and found extant in Irenaeus’ "multitude of Gospels.



The historical fact that Christian scholarship has for seventeen centuries spent itself in the effort to account for Christianity’s upsurge and character formation entirely without reference to this mass of literary lore of the antecedent world, out of whose very womb it actually was born, is to be seen now as one of the most fantastically eccentric phenomena in all the religious history of mankind. It is only to be accounted for by the factual circumstances that the Christian movement was from the start motivated by a psychology of faith, emotional unction, pietistic zealotry of the most ignorant and fanatical sort, gullible expectation of miracle and the supernatural, apocalyptic revelation with the cosmic "end of the world," the ignorant literalization of Biblical allegorism,--all which element bespeak the wholly unintellectual, unphilosophical character of the mentality and the psychology that launched the faith, to which after a considerable time the name of the Greek deific principle, the Christos, was attached. Beyond all contradiction this list of prime psychological factors in the incipient push of Christianity explains its ignoring the whole great corpus of esoteric literature which was unquestionably the garden bed of its growth. Furthermore the invincible repugnance which the movement manifested to this body of the lore of a spiritual science at once too intellectual and philosophical for the simple and uncritical folk who promulgated the Christian faith, attests volubly the plebeian status of the movement and its personnel.



Let the modern mind essay to diagnose with an accuracy that these outer symptoms amply guarantee the motif of a movement to promulgate a claimed divine revelation from the universal All-Father himself, and it will see on what low and unworthy bases the system of Christianity does indeed rest. Completely flouting the noblest and most authoritative characteristic of man’s finest culture, his most piquant afflations of aesthetic refinement, scorning the intellectual delight in the classical poetry and philosophy of the great Graeco-Roman exaltation, including the two great Homeric and the Virgilian epics, the rabid pietism of the early communicants of Christianity so filled its devotees with hatred of the Pagan cultural treasures that they forced Jerome to recant his earlier statements of his addiction to the classical literature, tore Augustine away from his interest in the



23



philosophy of Plotinus and the esoteric theosophy of Manichaeism, led Tertullian to shriek "What has Homer to do with the Gospels?", burned in a frenzy of wild rage the great Alexandrian library and murdered the esoteric lecturer Hypatia as she took sanctuary at the altar and scraped the flesh off her bones with oyster shells. Deeply inwrought in the texture of this anomalous aberration of good human intelligence are to be found, still weaving the somber thread of the tragic story of the victory of mass ignorance over sage wisdom, the true causes of the rise of Christianity.



The elucidation, then, of a large section of Scriptural text such as is here presented must be seen as valuable and precious beyond all calculation. It reveals how the pietistic fanaticism that bred a hatred of poetry, music and art, and a scorn of wholesome human pleasure which has held pretty solidly to the present day, was generated by the twisting of the normal human mind into forms of weird hallucination by the literalizing of myth, allegory, drama and natural and astrological symbolism in the mind of the uncultured masses. This episodic debacle of religious culture that befell the ancient world in the first three centuries of the Christian era (treated in full in the author’s major work, Shadow of the Third Century) is the crucial key to the understanding of the religious complication in the world today. It is an odd, but a challenging reflection that one can not well escape on reading this assemblage of amazing data of semantic significance, that half the world, and the half boasting more or less justly of leadership in modern intelligence, has been thrown for over seventeen centuries under the spell of a mental and psychological dementia that has given birth to the foulest superstition, bigotry and inhuman savagery recorded in all history, and that this tragic outcome has ensued as the result of the stupidity of a group of Galilean peasants in mistaking zodiacal history for veridical history.



24

聖經故事是古老盜版神話 幸德秋水

聖經故事是古老盜版神話 幸德秋水

    許多國家和時代都有從處女生出神的神話故事，馬利亞及生下的神之子的福音故事不過是普世流傳的非常古老神話的較現代版，在印度/巴比倫/埃及/希臘羅馬都有「神聖」個體揀選純淨人類女性成為祂進入人世方法的故事，又想化成人形兼保有神性，二者妥協就是人類身份的母親及「天」父的組合，例如羅馬古宗教的朱彼特化作天鵝臨幸麗達，而耶穌教搞的則是耶和華「庇蔭」馬利亞而搞大了她的肚子，讓她懷孕(路加1:34-35);中國則是在河裡洗澡的女神(Nymph)碰到蓮花就懷了伏羲氏，泰國則有遊蕩的陽光愛撫少女而生下偉大的施行奇蹟神Codom的故事;希臘則是年輕的阿波羅神臨幸雅典的一位美少女而產下柏拉圖;古代墨西哥和現代的巴勒斯坦一樣有處女變成大肚子生下神仙的神話，然而世界各地這麼多的處女生神的故事真正發祥地是古埃及，西元前1千8百年的Luxor大殿壁畫就有阿姆諾史普王三世誕生/出生/升天的情節，教會搞的耶穌誕生/出生/升天幾乎就是古埃及原版故事的再盜版，[科學與宗教，作者Malvert]揭露，路加福音第一章及第二章的故事是一點一滴翻版自阿姆諾史普王誕生的石壁上的故事。夏普(Sharp)，Gerald W.都揭露這個古埃及Luxor壁畫是路加福音第1章裡掰抄的偶像耶穌的故事原版，壁畫第一幕是古埃及的神言之神Taht呼召處女而向她宣告她懷聖胎了，第二幕是由Hathor神輔佐的Kneph聖靈神讓聖胎受孕，第三幕則是處女坐在接生婆的凳子，而聖嬰被抱在手裡，第四幕則是聖嬰受朝拜，登基受諸神恭敬及人類進禮物 [Natural Geneses. Massey， Vol. II， p. 398.] .
　　
　　　
　　
　　Luxor聖殿壁畫是這些匿名福音書作者的神蹟故事寫作來源之一，怪不得教會當年要強力打壓這些原始題材的來源身份，不但處女懷孕生耶穌是抄自古埃及的宗教，連福音書裡的馬槽誕生故事，伯利恆之星預示聖嬰誕生，逃往埃及，復活，升天，這些故事也都是抄自更古代的觀念而且抄得甚少更動;研究古埃及宗教的Gerald M.揭露古拜占庭基督教金碧輝煌，沾染煙薰的壁畫的聖母/聖嬰，呈現的是古埃及的處女艾西絲女神及聖子荷羅斯，而不是福音書裡的拿撒勒人的人類。科學及研究如此地揭露事實，唯有秉持無知及宗教利益才會繼續宣稱這些成書年代不詳的片段福音書作品是所謂的上帝天啟的話，我們若一層層把穿在耶穌身上從異教徒的神話及猶太來源的傳述剝除，他還剩下啥?福音書裡儘是一些讬稱是耶穌所講的，實則是更早或當代的異教徒文獻而來的說教;而基督教信仰幾乎每個儀式及教條都是抄襲自其他或更早更古的異教徒信仰，復活的比喻用法的神話，聖餐禮把象徵神身體的餅乾給吃掉，受洗，屈膝敬拜，點香，敲鐘，手交疊於胸前，教士的法衣及器皿，聖水，蠟燭，還有彌撒的字源，都是基督徒沿用沿襲更早的異教徒信仰的東西;三位一體更是有異教徒的色彩，而神的兒子的信仰更是一個古老的教派，而太陽神是神的兒子也是許多古老宗教的觀念，太陽成為正義的化身，天空則成了天父或至高者，耶穌圖像頭四周的光圈和顯示這和異教徒及印度的而一樣都是天空中的眾子之一.
　　
　　　
　　
　　十字架圖騰起源我們遺憾地指出，唯有許多尚未被告知真相的人，仍舊錯認十字架是源自基督信仰，石器時代摩擦二隻交叉的木枝生火大概已是原始人類感恩而未忘的心象圖騰，歐洲博物館藏有當時時代紀念碑刻有十字架圖騰的作品，史前時代的祭壇及後來各代的貨幣上就有「聖」十字架的圖騰，基督教被發明之前的古代墓地就有死者長眠於十字架，一如現代教徒死後墓地插上墓地象徵的十字架，在巴黎的Guimet博物館藏有基督教之前時代的許多十字架的樣本，古埃及的骯垃塌十字架(Ansata Cruz)是圓形頭下接T字形的十字架，今日埃及科普特的「基督教」教會的十字架圖騰正是這種十字架，中國，印度則把十字架當成是受尊敬而有力量的符咒;羅浮宮有異教徒神明頭上帶有十字架的收藏，庫克船長則驚講地發現紐西蘭原住民的墓地刻有十字架;朱利亞斯凱撒大帝征服高盧之前的古代法國的Germain神，早就穿有畫上十字架的衣服，聖Germain博物館收藏古代法國異教徒時代的祭壇早就刻有十字架，四福音書裡成書最晚的約翰福音才開始詳敘偶像耶穌釘上十字架的劇情，其他三福音則沒詳敘，由此可推斷最早期的耶穌信徒仍沒有導入十字架的圖騰，偶像耶穌在十字架上流血的概念在早期描敘十字架的記載裡並未出現，路加福音23:39的JBS和英對照版新約的英文譯文是[One of the criminals hanging there....]被吊在那裡的二名罪犯之一，中文新標點和合本把希臘原文及英文忠實譯本改成[同釘的二個犯人之一]是現代華人教會留下的醜惡不實譯文;耶穌本來被認為是吊著的，而不是釘在十字架上流血，基督徒在起源的年代被稱為[信奉被吊著之神的信徒]，約翰福音19:17開始延伸故事，而說耶穌自已扛自已的十字架;之前的馬太27:32/馬可15:21/路加23:26故事因為還沒編至這麼神，而寫說是有個叫西門的古利奈人替耶穌背十字架;約翰福音19:31提到耶穌肋被扎，也是其他三福音尚未發展出來而後來的約翰福音獨有的偶像耶穌受苦受難的高潮受虐樣板大戲。其他三福音尚未發展出約翰福音19:34的耶穌流寶血的約翰福音獨特劇情。三福音的概念是耶穌被吊著，而後改寫成吊在十字架上，後來的約翰福音才發展成耶穌被釘在十字架上.
　　
　　　
　　
　　古代羅馬基督徒墓穴繪畫根本沒有被釘在十字架上的耶穌的形象，長久以來，放入「聖」墓中的是羔羊，而羔羊伴隨十字架或在十架上則長久以來一直是早期基督教的圖騰，羔羊為何是早期基督教的長久的圖騰有很多說法，拉丁文Agni不但是羔羊的意思，也是印度教的神，此外，占星學上的山羊常被古人用羔羊混用的現象也被發現，基督教搞的羔羊除去世人的罪和之前的舊約裡的復活節羔羊的把戲一樣，而比猶太經典更早的古巴比倫早就有這套信仰。事實是，直至西元八百年後，才開始有人模人樣的人的形象的耶穌被晾在十字架上的表現方式。法國的孟德地區主教則在西元800年說:[因為黑暗消逝，並且也因為基督是個真的人，阿德亮主教下令把耶穌畫成人形，神的羔羊自此不再被畫在十字架上，而是被安置在十字架上的人形，若另外畫一隻在十字架腳下或對面的羔羊來代表，也不受反對]我們讓讀者自行判斷，耶穌這偶像若確有其人，並且曾被釘在十字架，為什麼教會足足要花八百年的時間發展之後才讓主教寫下[而現在耶穌是個真正的人...]等等的話。今日我們若再像古代教徒把羔羊畫在十字架上，而不是畫人模人樣的化成人樣的耶穌，則會被認為是褻瀆呢。請注意，四世紀時所畫的福音書裡讓拉撒路死而復活，以及五餅二魚喂飽五千人的福音書裡的耶穌故事，畫的都不是耶穌，而是一隻施行這些奇蹟的羔羊。
　　
　　(按:拉撒路/五餅二魚這些語源和故事原形都來自古埃及，另文再詳述)
　　
　　　
　　
　　現代的十字架上的人模人樣的耶穌是幾乎全裸而只用遮羞布包住神的兒子鼠蹊部/陽具的形象，而早期從羔羊轉畫成人形的十字架上的耶穌卻是包得密實，懂得穿衣服的耶穌，之後才慢慢畫成穿得很少而一副受苦受難的耶穌苦瓜臉。早期的耶穌像穿的是飄動的短上衣並伴隨著腳邊常畫著的，還遺留著的羔羊(按:羅馬宗教的牧羊神的觀念被教會吸收，另文再述).
　　
　　　
　　
　　教會之外的作者隻字未提及有耶穌此「人」，我們有限頭腦的人類無法對所有歷史問題追查出合理的確認，除了數學之外，其他的人類知識的分野恐怕都無法達成完全的確定性，因此所下的定論應該是有相關性並且能被修正，法律判某人上斷頭台，不見得合理地確認該人有罪，法律釋放某人也不見得合理地確認該人無辜;教條主義者才有熊心豹子膽宣稱他們擁有完全的確認性，而他們的宣稱不過是毫無根據的臆測罷了;因此，舉例來說，當我們知悉與福音神話書設定的年代同年代的猶太史家約瑟夫他筆下廣泛蒐羅寫入了當時歷史/人物/事件，而他的大量作品居然沒有提到耶穌時，我們能合理地確知，當時當地根本沒有新約四福音書描敘的耶穌這樣的一個人曾經存在過。約氏作品提到「耶穌」的章節是他人穿插之作，Warburton主教自已都說該章節是「公然的假造，十分愚蠢的行為」早期許多神父還敢把這位猶太法利賽派的史家弄成是寫下承認耶穌是神的兒子的史家，現代已少有基督徒把約瑟夫的作品拿來當作是耶穌存在的可靠史「實」依據，De Quincey說，這些章節是所有還沒瘋狂的人所搞出來的偽作，而偉大的英國神學家Lardner則是第一個證明約瑟夫作品裡，被用來見證耶穌存在的章節是拙劣的見證來源的人;我們追查偶像神話時要注意到，耶穌設定的存活年代的同時代其他非教會系統的作家不曾提到耶穌此號人物，這現象比上述約瑟夫被基督徒動手腳竄改的假見證還更引人注目，與耶穌此「人」(羊????)同時代的亞歷山大的猶太人腓羅在福音書的耶穌施行奇蹟的設定年代，去耶路撒冷過，腓羅的作品從未提到過此「人」名號過;耶穌這個名字是猶太人裡十分尋常的名字，他作品裡曾區分猶太名字何西阿(意思是拯救)及耶穌(意思是神拯救)的區別，這是多麼好的機會可讓腓羅寫到那位福音書裡的偶像耶穌的地方呀!然而他卻沒有提到這些事!不管福音書裡的耶穌是教會口中的宇宙超級唯一大至尊救主，還是福音書裡的猶太人口中的壞教法，亂教紀的離經叛道之徒，顯然的，腓羅當時在耶路撒冷可沒聽見有此號人物，不然的話，他早就該提及此人的事蹟;
　　
　　　
　　
　　另處再談新約裡的驚天地，泣鬼神的耶穌故事，並沒被其他異教徒作家及許多作家提及的詭異的隻字未提的情形，先來看塔西特的作品;塔西特的編年鑑直至1468年才被人知道有此書，該書提到[在提比裡斯統治期間被披拉多當作罪犯處死的Chrestus的信眾他們有他們的教派]，編年鑑裡這段話，其他古代作家都不曾提及過;英國的Ross進行的調查顯示此段話是義大利人布洛休里尼偽造的，不管Ross的論點對不對，重點是，古代神父毀壞異教徒的文件，並邪惡地偽造耶穌存在的假史實，無所不用其極的神父們當時若知道這位1世紀的塔西特寫過上述「見證」，早就和不信教的人在爭辯時拿來當作是福音書以外，一項強烈證明耶穌確有其人的證據了;塔氏這段作品提到的基督徒在羅馬「受迫害」的章節應是用來掩飾真正插寫這段話的作者是基督徒的身份，塔氏作品設立提及的基督徒受迫害的年代應是在西元64年，而根據新約聖經的說法，保羅於西元63--65年時，人在羅馬，保羅理應是塔氏作品裡寫到的尼祿皇帝迫害基督徒的事件見證人才是;使徒行傳28:30提到保羅在羅馬的歲月時說「保羅在自已租屋處，足足住了二年，來者不拒，接見別人;放膽傳上帝國，把主耶穌的事教導別人，無人禁止」.基督徒如此安詳地在羅馬扯蛋傳道的平和畫面和所謂基督徒在羅馬受迫害，被獅子咬，被綁在稻草蓆裡焚燒，照亮羅馬夜晚街道等等指控羅馬人「迫害」基督徒的畫面，是完全無法調和的矛盾。而且，大家都知道，羅馬人向來大致上對宗教宣傳漠不關心，從來就不曾對任何教派迫害過，羅馬的猶太人自由地維持著猶太人的身份，早年在羅馬城的猶太裔基督徒沒有理由如塔氏作品提到，只因宗教信仰就被丟入獅口，最有可能的是，這些基督徒口中的迫害比塔氏作品裡提到的還溫和，而原因是政治因素(按:基督耶穌若確有此人，則西元前20年起，加利利地區烽起雲湧的猶太恐怖主義對抗羅馬當局的運動，以其四福音書裡的和耶穌一起被逮的強盜巴拉巴，其全名叫巴拉巴耶穌，而巴拉巴在亞蘭語裡的意思又是神的兒子;而福音書裡所用的「強盜」希臘原文Leste是亂黨分子之意;這已超過巧合的程度;若確有耶穌此人，則福音書充其量是一部掩飾耶穌是加利利奮銳黨，當時的恐怖組織的亂黨頭目的事實而已，而政治上的救主正是猶太人所信仰及盼望的彌賽亞).
　　
　　　
　　
　　威廉泰勒智退盜賊而箭射蘋果的故事在不久前還被世人認為是史實，而今已證明此故事已超過合理的懷疑的範圍，泰勒和他的蘋果完全是神話式的傳述，由詩人寫下此題，其他的編纂者繼續在戲劇裡發揮，而瑞士甚至還有所謂的泰勒當年射中兒子頭頂的蘋果所用的弓呢，而今，我們卻知這都是傳說的英雄故事罷了;讓世界的受教育的人改觀，知道泰勒故事只是傳說而非史實的關鍵正是有位瑞士史學家Faberan Hamurbin.他的年代正是泰勒故事設定年代的不久，正如耶穌神話及史學家猶瑟夫一樣，若泰勒真有此人，史家不會漏掉此人，史家筆下卻隻字未提，無可挽回地揭穿了泰勒故事非史實的真相;而見證了1315年那場Morgarten戰役的史學家也根本未提過泰勒的故事，1497年的蘇黎世的編年史也沒有收錄此事，在眾多描寫瑞士脫離奧地利的戰役的記述裡，都找不到泰勒此人;然而，這麼多當代及後來的記述都沒有提到泰勒而造成這個故事的假史實的殺傷力，還不及約瑟夫作品未提到耶穌，因而造成的揭穿此事假史實的殺傷力的一半，耶穌施行奇蹟的故事比泰勒準確射中兒子頭上蘋果的故事來得更具感官的瘋狂性，史學家庇裡尼及昆提良，約瑟夫，哲學家腓羅，西尼卡，埃皮帖特斯，還有許多當代及耶穌神話設立年代不久的學者，都不曾提及耶穌過，這個正史裡查無此人的情形，比瑞士的記錄史事的人都不曾提及泰勒的情形，更加令人難以接受耶穌是史實人物，而且，福音書還充斥著基督教成立之前，從異教徒沿襲抄用的記敘。
　　
　　　
　　
　　耶穌故事是宗教編劇的受造物我們進行下一步之前，要提醒讀者，我們無意證明新約故事裡的耶穌是史實人物，也無意願證明新約故事裡的耶穌只是個拼湊出來的虛構神話，我們只講求證據，讓證據引領我們的立場，而不是讓自已的立場或宗教信仰去引領客觀的證據，我們不過是聽從二造雙方陳述的裁判，至此為止，對耶穌的史實證據不足，無法證明他是個史實裡的人物，但這不意味我們已證明了史實裡沒有一位像福音故事裡的耶穌的人;然而我們檢視的證據不但無法證實耶穌的史實性，它們還顯示，耶穌和密特拉太陽神，古埃及艾西絲/荷羅斯，希臘阿多尼斯，赫米斯，泰那的阿波羅，克里詩那等等的神話主角一樣，都是神話性的角色;我們被迫地指出，耶穌故事充滿了宗教劇本所有的劇情鋪張，刺激的情節，戲劇化的情境及結局，在古代，這種神秘的道德劇以真人扮演的起源非常之早，耶穌故事正是充滿這樣的況味，而沒有史實的味道，耶穌是英雄的角色，賣主的猶太則是反派，復活及升天則是謝幕結局;聖嬰誕生時有三位東方術士來朝，狂喜地帶來賀禮，這些戲劇性強烈的情節都不是歷史，充滿潤飾的福音書故事寫的是宗教神話，而不是史實人物該有的情節，沒有史實人物會有什麼天門為他開，東方術士為他拜，引導之星為他來的誕生情節;這些戲劇手法更是其他的傳奇故事的手法，我們拒斥阿波羅太陽神及密特拉太陽神的出生故事，我們卻誤以為耶穌誕生是史實，這是怎樣的雙重標準??福音書裡的耶穌四處奔走為人治病，還聲色疾厲地和法利賽人作激烈的言語衝突，甚至暴力的原形畢露而去翻猶太聖殿當局的桌子(太21:12)還派70位弟子去各城傳揚自已理念(路加10:1)這樣一位人人皆知的狠角色，和他扛上的死對頭，身為半自治，半官方的猶太當局要捉拿耶穌到案時，居然不知道耶穌長什麼樣子，而要靠猶大的親嘴作記號(馬可福音14:43--45)，這個猶大背叛耶穌的故事是舞台張力十足的一幕，但是卻不是真實事件該有的情節。
　　
　　　
　　
　　馬太福音27:19提到披拉多的夫人告訴她的夢象，要求披拉多不可加害耶穌;這是個舞台效果十足的一幕，然而，羅馬人的司法制度可沒這沒墮落低等淪落到讓一個女人憑著自已的夢就來影響公堂之上的司法執行;這故事只是要敘說聖靈不要耶穌受害的立場，然而耶穌還是遇害了，這位披拉多的夫人顯然作了場聖靈賜給她的春秋大夢，聖靈和舊約裡的先知但以理一樣搞夢境啟示，卻無能阻止耶穌受害。
　　
　　　
　　
　　下一幕則是馬太福音27:21-25，披拉多認為耶穌是無罪的，卻讓猶太人殺害公堂之上，審判者認定無罪的無辜者被殺害;大英百科全書提到[耶穌]此條解釋道，「耶穌被十字架釘死，表明了他是根據羅馬帝國懲治叛逆的法律而處理的，但是基督教認為他的死是為了救世人的罪(中文版1987年版，第16冊，482頁)」若真有此人，此人充其量是當時數不清的猶太人叛亂事件的眾多號稱是彌賽亞之一的亂黨頭目罷了。重點是，羅馬帝國的公堂審判會有審判官曲從群眾意願而作審判的事嗎?身為行政官長的披拉多顯然無力主導審判，反而是曲從鼓燥的猶太群眾的要求，他們要求釋放一名全名叫作「耶穌巴拉巴」意思是「神的兒子耶穌」的「強盜」，而福音書只寫此人叫巴拉巴(太27:21)群眾鼓燥要求釘死耶穌(路23:21)，公堂之上容許這樣的無政府狀態啊???更何況史實裡的羅馬帝國向來把猶太人視作是次等的，西元前30--西元1百年間一直有前撲後繼的猶太人叛亂事變，向來強力鎮壓及採取連坐法的羅馬帝國怎會容許這種舞台表演效果張力十足的情節在現實裡發生。
　　
　　　
　　
　　耶穌被捕之前，在客西馬尼園裡居然怕死地禱告上帝，要上帝不要讓他死(太26:36-42)，這位號稱和上帝合一而在亙古之前就預定要藉由他死而流下的寶血洗淨人類罪惡的救世主，合該從容地期待被逮捕的這刻的到來，而不是顯示出他害怕死亡的真面目，路加4:1說耶穌聖靈充滿，約翰福音3:34說耶穌擁有無限量的聖靈，哥林多前書2:10[聖靈參透萬事，連上帝深奧的事也參透了]，然而這位假神耶穌卻顯然不知他會死在十字架上，在十字架上鬼吼鬼叫，怨天尤人大叫「我的上帝，我的上帝，你為何離棄我(馬太27:45)」沒有世俗的烈士從容就義的氣度，這寫的是一個舞台上，戲劇性效果的英雄悲嘆，從神學上，史實上，都說無法交代其真實性的舞台角色，一位非史實的角色罷了。
　　
　　　
　　
　　獄中的蘇格拉底是平和寧靜的，預知自已大難臨頭的耶穌在客西馬尼園卻嚇得幾近屁滾尿流，「禱告極懇切，汗珠如大血點，滴在地上(路加22:44)」他的弟子被他說是「你們心靈固然願意，肉體卻是軟弱了(太26:41)」此句成了許多懶散者的藉口名言，這位在十字架上退卻的人卻成為千萬人的唯一救贖，這位無法接受十字架刑罰的「加冠」的耶穌肯定是個不存在的幻影，可憐的耶穌!他在客死馬尼園裡要上帝撒走他死亡的杯(太26:39)又在十字架上哀聲嘆氣大叫「我的上帝，你為何離棄我(太27:45)」誰來救救十字架上不願一死的可憐耶穌呀!!!
　　
　　　
　　
　　蘇格拉底是雅典人很熟悉的人，而他受審入獄;福音書裡的耶穌到處在巴勒斯坦各地及耶路撒冷扯蛋，馬太15:21說他用五餅二魚喂飽5千人，馬太15:29-38說他在加利利地方用七餅及數條魚喂飽4千人;路加6:17說[許多百姓從猶太全地和耶路撒冷及泰爾，西頓海邊來講他講道]，路加8:39說格拉森全城的人都傳述耶穌趕鬼的事蹟 .....。耶穌如此地有名聲，他應該比蘇格拉底在雅典城的名聲還旺，還為人所知曉才對;馬可14:53--15:1記述耶穌在夜裡被捕，受審，然後才押解給披拉多，但是，猶太公會可沒有如此地不光明正大，猶太公會和現代文明國家的聽證會一樣是講求公正公開的，就像蘇格拉底受審也沒有在夜裡見不得人地舉行一樣;比較史實人物蘇格拉底和福音神話的耶穌角色，就知道，偶像耶穌不過是古時候舞台表演的道德劇的劇情鋪陳;耶穌往生時，還有太陽日蝕(27:45)這都是充滿戲劇手法的橋段;
　　
　　　
　　
　　蘇格拉底受審的答辯錄成為經典作品，較早的馬太福音26:63/馬可14:61卻說「耶穌不言語，一句話也不回答」。神學家胡扯撒謊說這是應驗了舊約以賽亞書42:2預言的，彌賽亞將會「他不喧嚷，不揚聲...壓傷的蘆葦，他不折斷」。然而，後來的約翰福音可沈不住氣而破功了，讓耶穌答辯，約翰福音18:34「耶穌回答說，這話是你說的，還是別人論我對你說的呢?」。這位假神耶穌，顯然武功全廢，功力盡失，無法再像約翰福音2:25胡扯的造神運動寫的「耶穌知道人心裡所存的」，他不但要請教披拉多所說的[你是猶太人的王嗎(約翰18:33)]此話是披拉多自已的話還是別人傳述的，這位耶穌還在答辯時撒謊!他跟祭司長說「我在暗地裡沒有說什麼(約翰18:20)」，而馬太8:30耶穌卻偷偷摸摸，見不得人地「禁戒別人，不要告訴人」他是基督的身份，可能福音書裡的耶穌告訴別人他是基督時，也心虛所以才自量力地要別人不要洩漏他曾經告訴別人，他就是基督。明明曾暗地傳講過，卻又撒謊騙祭司長，他講話向來光明磊落，撒謊的行為是來自上帝還是來自魔鬼呢?約翰福音8:44耶穌自已對法利賽人說，撒謊的人是來自父魔鬼，我們不願直言撒謊的耶穌他口中的天父正是在呼喊父魔鬼，畢竟這會刺傷基督徒被插上十字架而成為不能思考的心靈墓場，然而，我們人類有權利要求耶穌不要在福音書裡說謊，不過，我們不必要和一位史證缺代的神話人物計較太多。
　　
　　　
　　
　　蘇格拉底的史實故事裡的雅典法庭是有秩序的，福音書神話鬼扯的耶穌受審，卻是一幅比古希臘還文明先進的後代羅馬帝國強權的法庭上的無秩序狀態，福音書裡的耶穌受審是一群流氓式的猶太群眾大叫要釘死耶穌的亂象，然而，沒有一位已文明開化的羅馬帝國的審判者會像福音書裡的披拉多一樣優柔寡斷，而且是聽任群眾把號稱無罪的耶穌釘上唯有叛亂犯才受的十字架刑罰;耶穌可不是馬可/馬太福音裡受審時一副沈默不語的柔弱模樣，約翰福音2:13-16描寫耶穌用鞭子把猶太聖殿裡兌換銀錢的人的牛羊趕走，又推翻別人的桌子，要知道這些人在聖殿所賣的牛羊，兌換貨幣，這些服務正如天主教教會前廊販賣念珠，聖像，蠟燭一樣，這些兌換貨幣的人的重要性不亞於猶太教的拉比教士，耶穌拿著鞭子趕跑別人的牛羊財產，充分顯示出他暴力的本質;教會辯解說是因為這些人污染了聖殿，然而，用暴力方式趕走別人的耶穌，一樣是半斤八兩，好不到那裡去，這跟盜匪奪走我們的衣服，財產的行為，沒有二樣;縱使那些人是教會胡扯宣傳的惡人，也沒有任何人有權利用耶穌這種強盜暴力手段去剝奪別人的財產
　　
　　　
　　
　　馬太福音5:43提到的登山寶訓裡「愛你的敵人」的耶穌形象，從來沒在耶穌身上體現過，而這些話還都是來自法利賽派的十二長老箴言的教訓，冠名讬稱是耶穌說的，耶穌說「沒有刀的要賣了衣服，買刀(路加22:36)」還說:「至於那些仇敵，不要我作王的，把他們拉來在我面前殺了吧！(路加19:27)」這就是偶像耶穌的愛，礙眼的敵人都殺掉，他可不是和平主義者甘地，更不是教會胡扯的「和平之子」的名號.

信徒一方面說他相信福音書，一方面吞下教會所說的，耶穌是完美的神/人合體的鬼話，耶穌是宇宙唯一的真上帝，然而，馬可10:17「耶穌說，你為何稱我是良善的，除了上帝之外，再沒有良善的」耶穌自已都否認自已是完全良善的，更否認他是上帝;後來的約翰福音10:30又字面矛盾地說「我和父原為一」然而希臘原文此處的「一 Hen」是心意合一，根本不是本質合一的意思;三位一體這個4世紀才發展出來的人為教條，教會自已都意見分歧，時至今日的敘利亞教會，科普特教會，亞美尼亞教會，耶和華見證人教派都不搞三位一體的教義;製造耶穌角色的宗教編劇家不知要如何處理這個虛妄不存在的角色結局，若寫說他翹辨子了，必會被追問，耶穌的墳墓在那裡?於是，耶穌被接升天的馬可福音16:19的結局就搞出來的，四福音的作者顯然各自不認識，更不知道歷史上這些曾被打入旁經的四福音會被收錄成新約聖經的正典，教會當局十分懶惰，連招式也沒套好，性喜自打嘴巴搞宗教自虐狂的把戲，四福音裡最晚的約翰福音是最神化耶穌的作品，約翰福音3:13居然說「除從天降下，仍舊在天上的人子(耶穌)，沒有人升過天」，顯然這位教會宣傳的上帝靈啟的作者約翰，不知道創世紀5:24早就有以諾被接升天，舊約列王紀下2:11也早就有以利亞被接升天的故事了，新舊約就如此瘋狂地合訂成一本書，就連福音書裡扯蛋的耶穌死而復活的墓穴也和耶穌誕生日一樣，眾說紛紜，天主教版本的該墓位在古耶路撒冷城外，合乎新約希伯來書13:12講的「耶穌在城門外受苦」，而基督教版本的墓穴則是遲至1949年才由歌登將軍」發現」的，精通希臘文的蘇佐揚牧師自已在其著作[新約聖經難題，基督教天人出版社出版，第68頁]自已下結論招認，二處都無充分證據證明耶穌是在該處被釘及被埋。