« What is the proper use of giving your testimony when witnessing? (Video) | Main | When Youth Pastors Ought to Feel Responsible »

June 18, 2013


I assume the claim he is making is that the story of Jesus is based on fables and legends that came before.

I'm not sure how to answer this one right now and I'm headed to work, but I will check back later this week.

Good post.

I don't know much about Horus, Mithras, etc. I would focus my energy on the differences and how those differences rule out the conclusion they are seeking. In other words, I could likely find several people in history that tick off many of these same boxes - but what does this have to do with the claims of Christ? The term non-sequitur comes to mind.

After doing what Amy suggested, I would also question the factual claims of this image. For example, J. Warner Wallace recently wrote an article on this site dispelling some of the claims this image makes about Mithras; I would suspect there are similar issues with the other figures. At least it's worth investigating.

Then assuming that the unspoken assertion is that Jesus is no different from any of these other figures, I would examine the teachings of each persona, and I think you'll find that out of all them Jesus' claims about himself and about mankind are unique.

Anyway, just my two cents...

First, many of the similarities are not similar, but have been made to seem similar. Sadly, this has been the way some Christians have done hermeneutics. But while we can say that there is a similarity, it's honest to admit that many of the similarities aren't very similar, but have been artificially linked by this chart.

Second, accounts of these kinds of false gods in general demonstrate an evolution of the overall mythos surrounding them. They change, often dramatically, over time. Non-Christian Bible scholars have tried to make the same observation regarding Christian theology. It's different when you realize that they are imposing change where Christians do not. In other words, we look for the consistency in scripture over time and are able to see it. They look for change over time over and against a common unified understanding of the Biblical text in order to assuage people from an orthodox understanding instead of understanding that the Bible demonstrates a remarkable consistency over its history and the diverse human authors and cultures that have contributed to it. In fact, they do so against the internal references of the Bible from later texts to those of earlier texts as to reinforce the original messages as applicable in contemporary times.

Third, there are also extrabiblical evidences of Jesus. We hold the Bible to be authoritative and there yet exists other writings that may not be authoritative, but lend evidence to the existence and activities of Jesus. The ancient writings that tell us about these false gods are not canonized as such, but the evidence for their existence is rather lacking compared to that of Jesus.

Fourth, there is no personal testimony of the false gods' activities today whereas every Christian has a personal testimony as to the activities of Christ today.

Just for fun:

Link here.

Link here.

Link here.

Link here.


"every Christian has a personal testimony as to the activities of Christ today."

The way you talk it's as if Christ is walking around somewhere chatting to people.

"Once his position is clear, how would you refute it?"

So you don't even know what the claim is, but you know a priori that you can, should, and will refute it?

That's the spirit!

I appreciate Amy's advice that "the first thing you'd need to do would be to have him clarify what claim he's making." So often in these discussions we need to cut through the innuendo and get right to the point.

Unfortunately, many people get huffy and offended, and they totally deny they hold the opinions I think they hold. Instead of getting offended, they should just say it plainly - and then defend the ideas they choose to hold. That's how you have a good discussion.

Wow! It looks like the Horus myth was based on the historical Jesus! And Mithra is a close second...


This is called 'training' and 'mentoring'.


You misquoted the text. Probably intentionally, but I’ll leave that for you to clarify.

We ought not put words into folk’s mouths and then call that “reason” or “logic”.

It’s not.


“……….the first thing you'd need to do would be to have him clarify what claim he's making, since the image doesn't state any conclusions from its data. What questions would you ask to have him clarify his position and to challenge him? Once his position is clear, how would you refute it? Give us your thoughts…….”


“…….you know a priori that you can, should, and will refute it?............”

Sometimes the answer to “how would you refute” is this, “I can’t.” Or, “They make a good case.” There is no stated assumption in the text to support your misread.

Now, this sort of sloppy interpretation is the very thing this post is about, only, it is about such sloppiness on the part of those who feel Horus (etc) lines up, and not about such on your part. But you serve as a good example too for an object lesson on reasoning here.

Now, I’m just guessing, but I suspect that the person who posted this has already looked into the evidence and is, as RonH comments, conveying, in steps, either information, or, modes of discussion, and etc. RonH, I thought you would know better than to put words into folks mouths by agreeing with Staircaseghost’s assertion, which is either dishonest, or, if not intentional then simply unsophisticated and short-sighted.

Since the chart states that Horus was crucified, and since all available evidence fails to show us, does not show us, that that this mode of punishment was employed by the Egyptians, it would seem Mike Westfall is correct that the chart implies that Horus is a copy of Jesus. But, of course, we know that is not the case, just as we know that the reverse is not the case either, for obvious reasons. December 25th is just funny, but probably worth mentioning. The links provided earlier add nuances. I agree with “t’s” approach as stated truth claims about reality by each person/figure listed lead us to a rapid and wide dis-connect among all these persons/figures.

Another link on “crucifixion” being used (or not) eons ago: Link here.


When I said, "dishonest" I was referring to the assertion of "you know a priori that you can...refute...", and not to your comment about teaching. Obviously you get how the game is played.... far better than I. Though, you seemed to avoid disagreeing with his leap.

Even a cursory look at the
Horus myth shows that the chart is pure fantasy.

Many Gods:

Because every bit of physical data in all of physics, every last data point, testifies against the existence of any everlasting uncaused cause of a material sort, the immaterial is inevitable. Whether that is just another word for some sort of spooky material remains to be seen, but, again, no material stuff behaves like that. Ever. At all. Now, we all have our infinite regress, and if it is materialism, then we are taken into nonsense. If Immaterialism via Idealism, then we are taken inevitably to Mind (welcome to Christianity, then) unless the Idealist pulls back at the last minute in timidity and thus ends in the contradiction of simple materialism via a vague and ill-defined precursor to Mind and the self-contradiction of Nature being free of Nature as it seeks to claim volition. Then God Himself, arms spread wide, pouring Himself out for His beloved: In God’s Eternally Sacrificed Self we find our regress inside of Love’s necessarily triune topography where One Who loves the beloved therein is forever emptied unto, into, the Beloved there inside the triune, and this utterly and not in simple gesture, such that that certain death of self is found, and this perpetual emptying is found forever pouring into the Beloved Who is therein forever filled up there in the triune and within this embrace we find that the One thus poured out is, though lost, there inside the Beloved thus filled, and thus is forever resurrected as this I and this You are found in Self-Abdication from Beginning to End back and forth forever as these Two Everlasting Motions forever birth the Singular-We. Inside of Love’s triune topography of I-You-We we find Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self and thereby we find that Personhood, Mind, Logic, Love, Volition, and our entire A to Z where our own Grace is concerned are all found not only intact but everlastingly so and quench all regresses into either irrationality or necessary incoherency.

We find that Truth and Love are in fact our final regress, our final, and highest, ethics. When we see Everlasting Love, we see what such a thing must look like and we see its perpetual Self-Abdication, its perpetual Resurrection, and its necessary Triune topography. We see its Eternally Sacrificed Self necessarily shouting, “I am He Who was dead and yet live”, and this forever emptying, forever filling amid Love’s I-You-We. If we have not seen this we have not seen God, for, God is Love. In Love’s Cross we see this. We see God, for God is Love.

My apologies to WisdomLover for quoting him here:

“Belief in one less God than me is akin to a solipsist's belief in one less universe than me.

Sorry, it may be fun to think about in philosophy class, but it's just not an enlightened view.

There have indeed been thousands of religions. Some of them, e.g. Buddhism or Jainism do not assert the existence of a God. Insofar as these religions are simply silent about God and not positively atheistic, and insofar as they do not otherwise conflict with the theistic alternatives, they may even be worth considering as possibly true additions to the true faith.
Among theistic religions, you can't seriously be saying that there's no rational reason to prefer Christianity to, say, Thor worship. If God has chosen to reveal Himself, He's going to succeed. God is not Thor, because God didn't see to it that worship of Thor flourished.

There are only four theistic faiths worth considering as possibly true:

1. Christianity
2. Judaism
3. Hinduism
4. Islam

God is Just, Merciful and Gracious. Of those four religions, which of them is the religion that speaks of a God of Grace?” (WisdomLover)


Thanks. I'm flattered that you consider my musings worth remembering and even quoting.

That quote does get to the nub here.

Is the author of the little graphic above suggesting that the Horus worship is the true faith?

Probably not. But if not that, then what?

No doubt there's a "therefore Atheism" that's supposed to go at the end...somehow.

This 'argument' hardly needs to be considered with a straight face.

What would really be funny if it weren't so soul-damningly tragic is that the master logician who provided the rational tour de force embodied in the little graphic above, would probably also, with a straight face, presume to teach us all about the elementary logical flaws in the standard arguments for Christianity.

@scbrownlhrm nice try, but I'm rather confident your readers know that quotation is what happens in between the little marks that look like "".

@RonH do you not find it is an immoral abuse of one's privilege as a mentor to train people in the art of assuming they couldn't possibly be wrong, rather than teaching them to ask, "what is true"?


Okay then. The post acyually states we can't be wrong.


How would we "refute" if Horus actually did have all that in common with Jesus about 3K years prior to Him etc? In this situation, "refute" does not mean to refute the stated chart, but, its conclusions. One would have to employ all sorts of other data to bring in the entire picture. Thus, whether it is "refute" in the sense of the chart itself (which proves to be nonsense), or, if it is "refute" in the sense of conclusions made assuming the chart was in fact accurate, there is still a long way to go where conclusions are concerned. Not only does the question not make the assumption that we just cannot be wrong, but, in fact, it even leaves room to allow the chart to be accurate and yet refute any drawn conclusions from that.

Perhaps you feel it is a moral act to just "take the word of the chart and its author and his/her conclusion".

Well, that would be an immoral lesson.

You seem to miss the whole point of this whole lesson. And worse, you seem to be implying we ought not challenge any conclusions of data presented.

That's a little odd given this is a blog on how to employ reason.


"And worse, you seem to be implying we ought not challenge any conclusions of data presented"

By this we mean that it seems to be implied that the push to challenge conclusions, the push to question is in fact an actual statement of "I cannot be wrong" and is also a push toward immorality, toward arrogance.

In that case, Science itself is the most immoral and arrogant push we know of.

But, of course, Scripture tells us to employ reason, to appeal to evidence, and this is why Science is the friend of God, as are reason and logic.

To give off a flavor of shame to our children or to anyone in such subtle undertones against their drive to question is the most un-scientific motion we could make upon the stage of inquiry.

If you want to watch a Christian panic, just ask them to provide some evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed. Ask them to tell you everything they can about Jesus using only material from outside the Bible and let the fun begin. I suggest a visit to Jesusneverexisted.com where the truth about this fictional figure is exposed.

The comments to this entry are closed.