Can you Return to the Faith if You Used to Believe, but Fell Away?

Question:

Is it true that if you once lived as a faithful Christian, but fell from Gods grace, there is no point trying to come back to God? Some from a group of Christians told me, there is no returning, based on this Bible passage: Hebrews 6:4-6.

Answer:

If a person has fallen away, and they desire to repent and return to the Lord, they most certainly can. God will not turn them away. This principle, that God will accept those who were once part of the faith, but have gotten lost from it, back to the faith, is a fundamental to many of Jesus' teachings.

Just a few examples are:

1) Jesus Himself will seek those who used to be part of the flock, and have wandered away.

"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off." (Matthew 18:12-13)

2) The prodigal son is accepted back to his home with open arms, joy and celebration. The son who left clearly used to be part of the family, and was returning home to his family. (Luke 15:11-32)

3) Peter was a fervent and passionate follower of Jesus, yet openly and publicly denied Him in the strongest terms possible (Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, "I don't know the man!" Immediately a rooster crowed. - Matthew 26:74), and yet, was welcomed back into the faith after he repented by none other than Jesus Himself. This, despite the fact that the scripture says,

"If we deny him, he also will deny us." (2 Timothy 2:12b KJV)

4) If someone who used to believe wanders away from the Truth, we should seek to bring them back to save them from death.

My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

So what about the passage in Hebrews, that appears to say you cannot come back once you fall away? This question came with the verse quoted in the King James Version, so here is that verse from the KJV:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV)

One of the problems with interpreting this to be a "once for all" proclamation is, as demonstrated above, it doesn't line up with the clear teaching in the rest of scripture about falling away and returning, but there is another problem: the tenses in the Greek don't support how this verse is often translated.

First, the verb ἀνακαινίζω (to renew, to restore) is in the Present Infinitive, which indicates continuous, repetitive action. Thus, it should read "to be continuously renewing them over and over again into repentence." The Greek infinitive is not used to express time, but aspect, and the Present Infinitive indicates that something is ongoing or repetitive, while the Aorist Infinitive indicates that something occurred once, or has a definitive beginning and end. For example:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34)

"Follow me" is a Present Infinitive, and doesn't indicate that they need to follow Him once to the specific place He happened to be going at that moment, but that they need to follow Him in an ongoing fashion, for the rest of their life.

Contrast this with the Aorist Infinitive:

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." (Luke 19:5)

Here, the verb "stay" (the Greek literally says, "it is necessary for me to stay at your house...") is an Aorist Infinitive, indicating that Jesus was going to visit Zacchaeus' house one time, not take up residence there for an extended period of time.

So the first thing we need to notice is that this is not forbidding someone from returning to the Lord after having left, but rather, indicates that the problem is if they are continuously falling away and returning and then falling away and returning, on and on, as that is not true repentance. 

Further, the participle (ανασταυρουντας - recrucifying) following that indicates the ongoing state they are in, "continually recrucifying the Son of God..."

A far more accurate translation of this passage is found in the International Standard Version (ISV), which was just released in electronic form in 2013, and is not expected to be released in printed form until this year. You can find out more about the ISV, including how to download it to your computer, phone or other electronic device, here.

For it is impossible to keep on restoring to repentance time and again people who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have become partners with the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of God's word and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away, as long as they continue to crucify the Son of God to their own detriment by exposing him to public ridicule. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

In other words, if a person is not sincere in their desire to repent and follow Christ with their whole heart, a habit of constantly wandering in and out of the faith is a hypocritical lifestyle that subjects Jesus to public ridicule. This is the person who tries to join the faith for a while, then leaves it when it gets inconvenient; he rejoins later, then leaves again, then decides to come back, only to get bored and leave the faith again, and so on. That is not a struggling believer, nor is it a person who left once, and has, like the prodigal son, changed their mind and now wishes to return. This is a person who is unstable in their faith, with no real ongoing desire to serve Jesus, and frankly, probably only comes back when it is convenient (and then, only for a while), which is a completely different situation. This kind of person never fully repents and surrenders to Jesus.

This is NOT the same as a sincere follower who commits sins. We do not lose our salvation each and every time we sin. Nor is it a reference to the sincere follower who is struggling to overcome one particular sin (such as anger, or alcoholism). This person does not leave the faith each time they sin, but is immediately remorseful, as Peter was when Jesus looked at him, and he realized what he had just done.

But Peter said, "Mister, I don't know what you're talking about!" Just then, while he was still speaking, a rooster crowed. Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word from the Lord, and how he had told him, "Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times." So he went outside and cried bitterly. (Luke 22:60-62)

If you used to attend, and then, for whatever reason, left the faith, but you want to return, the door is still open. Jesus will still greet you with open arms, and we will all rejoice with you at your return to the family. By all means, come back.

And may I be the first to say, "Welcome home."

Is Christianity Deceptively Selective About the Commands in the Bible?

Question:

The Bible lists things like eating shellfish right along side homosexuality as equally bad, because both are abominations, yet they [Christians] keep eating shrimp while saying homosexuality is wrong. Isn't this kind of selective obedience to the Bible hypocritical?

Answer:

There are three questions here.

1) Why do Christians seem to selectively pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they obey?
2) What is an abomination?
3) Are "eating shrimp" and "homosexuality" really classified together in the Old Testament?

And maybe even a fourth question:

4) Are Christians hypocrites?

The simple answer to the first question is that we are told over and over again in the New Testament that the law, and the commands found in the law, no longer apply to those who believe in Jesus, as His death and resurrection have set us free from the law. This is a central issue for Paul, one that he addresses repeatedly in several letters.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6)

Paul insists that this is a central tenet of Christianity. The law could make us aware that we are not righteous, but it could not make us righteous. It could make us aware of our sin, but it could not cleanse us of our sin. That is why Jesus' death and resurrection were so important.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:20-21)

However, something that becomes clear in Paul's writings on the law is that the moral commandments in the law are simply an expression of God's character, and as such, are eternal. Both Paul and Jesus constantly insist that the moral part of the law is still binding on believers, because the moral commands embody the heart of God that we be holy and loving. Further, just for clarity, virtually every moral law from the Old Testament is repeated in the New Testament.

The part of the law that was ceremonial, such as the cleanliness laws, dietary laws, festivals, sacrifices and so on were intended to point us to Christ, and those were never really intended to be eternal. You can still do them if you really, really want to, but there is not really a point to it any more. They are just a shadow; Jesus has come, and He is the reality that they were pointing to all along. So live the reality, not the shadow.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Thus, none of the dietary commands are binding on believers, but the commands to be truthful, to refrain from adultery, theft, murder, coveting and so on are all still in effect. This means that Christians are not really "picking and choosing" which parts of the Old Testament they want to keep, and throwing out the stuff they don't want to keep. The quick and dirty guideline is this: if it is a moral command, it is still binding (and has been repeated in the New Testament), if it is a ceremonial law (sacrifices, dietary, cleanliness, festivals, etc.), it is no longer required for followers of Jesus Christ.

Second, is an abomination a especially horrible sin?

The Hebrew word usually translated "abomination," תּועבה, means "disgusting, loathsome, nasty, horrible," but here is the really important part: this word appears 117 times in the Old Testament, and is attached to virtually every moral or idolatrous sin in the Bible. Among the sins listed as abominations are (in alphabetical order), adultery, atheism, bestiality, breaking a vow, cheating, creating discord, demon worship, evil schemes, hardening the heart, homosexuality, incest, justifying wickedness, lying, magic, murder, oppressing the poor, pride, shedding innocent blood, theft, and violence. And this is not an exhaustive list.

The point is simply that God finds all sin disgusting. Sin is an abomination to God.

Ironically, despite this common connection in our culture, one of the things not on this list is eating shrimp.

There is a second Hebrew word, שׁקץ, that is used almost exclusively of foods that are ceremonially unclean. It only appears 11 times in the Old Testament, and means, "filthy, dirty, polluted, very unclean." In some translations, such as the KJV, this word is also translated "abomination." This is the word used in the passages where Israel is forbidden from eating shellfish (which would include shrimp).

So are homosexuality and eating shrimp really equated in the Bible? No. Homosexuality is treated as a moral issue while eating shrimp is an issue of ceremonial cleanliness (meaning the ban on eating shrimp has been lifted in the New Testament).

On the other hand, contrary to what some seem to imply, homosexuality is not treated as some especially horrible sin that is set apart in God's mind from all other sins. Sin is sin, and God finds all sin disgusting (an abomination), including that lie you told last week, the time you gossiped back in middle school, and the pencil you stole from work. However, while God clearly finds all sin disgusting, He really does know the difference between something that is truly evil, such as plotting and carrying out a murder, and a victimless sin, such as stealing a paper clip. All are equally sin, but they are not all equally evil. See my post, "Do All Roads Lead to God?" for a more in depth discussion of the difference between "sin" and "evil," and the real meaning of "sin."

So the bottom line is that the Old Testament law has moral commands that are eternally binding on all believers, while it also has ceremonial laws which were always intended to be temporary, point to something greater, and now that the greater, Jesus, has arrived, they are no longer binding on believers. In other words, God Himself has given us permission to be selective in what we obey concerning ceremonial laws.

Theologically speaking, there is  much more to this, but there is no where near enough room in this forum for what God was really doing with those ceremonial laws, and why it is that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," as well as why Paul calls the "fulfilled" law, "the Law of the Spirit of Life."

As for the last question, "Are Christians hypocrites?"

Frankly, in the strictest sense, yes we are. We constantly preach holiness and love, yet are often sinful and selfish. We talk about being set free from sin, yet all too often there is no discernible difference in our behavior from that of any self proclaimed modern pagan. The difference, however, is that most of us are aware that we are imperfect, that we are constantly failing, and that we are unlikely to attain a true moral perfection in this life. We don't claim to be perfectly sinless, we claim to be forgiven, to be washed, and to have access to a God who is, little by little, helping us correct the flaws in our character so that we can sin less and less. And because we are so keenly aware of our own failings, we have no desire to beat you up about yours. We once were where you are now, we have not forgotten it, and we are deeply aware that our current state is due to Jesus, not to anything we did.

A real hypocrite is not the person that Christ is gradually healing who is trying to help you find that same healing for your wounds; a real hypocrite is the person who stands above you bruised and bleeding, claiming to have no injuries of any kind, while castigating you for your cuts and lacerations. The real hypocrite tries to make you feel like you are less so they can be more. The real believer treats you like you are priceless, worth every minute and effort, and that you can become more like Jesus, not more like them.

In other words, the essence of the hypocrite is pride, arrogance and selfishness, while the essence of the believer is humility, humbleness, and selflessness. And we freely admit we are not there yet. 

We who believe in Jesus and have the eternal life He promised are on a journey, and much to our delight, there is room on this bus, right here next to us, for you to join in the journey.

Social Morality Part One: Does the Bible Endorse Slavery?

Question:

Isn't the Bible's view on homosexuality kind of like the Bible's view on slavery? The Bible endorses slavery, yet Christians have long admitted the Bible was wrong and rejected slavery. If you were willing to reject what the Bible said on slavery, why are you not willing to do the same thing with homosexuality, and admit that the Bible is wrong about it as well?

Answer:

Your entire question is founded upon a premise that needs to be addressed before I can answer your question: Does the Bible endorse slavery? So in part one, I will address what the Bible actually says about slavery. In part two (which I will address in a few weeks, as there are a few other questions I want to get to first), I will address what the Bible actually says about homosexuality.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that can lead to the idea that Slavery is perfectly fine with God. For example, here is Jesus talking about slaves and masters:

The student is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his master. (Matthew 10:24)

Far from condemning slavery, Jesus seems to be blatantly reinforcing the idea that slaves are genuinely inferior to their masters. Further, in Matthew 18:23-35 Jesus tells a parable where the master was about to sell a man's entire family, and although he initially showed mercy, he later demanded the slave be imprisoned and tortured until that slave's full debt could be repaid. There seems to be no indication in the story that Jesus Himself has a problem with the practice of slavery, selling slaves, or even of harsh treatment of slaves.

Paul follows this example, and rather than demanding that Christian masters free their slaves, goes no further than demanding they treat their slaves well.

Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Ephesians 6:7-9)

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

Not only is there no condemnation of slavery, passages like these, and many, many more seem to show at the very least that Jesus, Paul, and by extension God, are fine with slavery, and at most, they fully endorse the practice.

So does this mean that the Bible endorses slavery? Well, yes and no.

Saying that the Bible endorses slavery is somewhat parallel to saying that it endorses death. 

Does the Bible endorse death? Well, yes and no.

Adam and Eve were warned that breaking their one law would result in death, and we are told that because of their failure, death has reigned over the history of mankind. Murder, on the one hand, is forbidden, and even causing an accidental death requires the guilty party to make recompense. However, God Himself set up death penalty laws for certain crimes, and people were killed in wars that God authorized in the Old Testament.

Most striking of all, Jesus Himself came to the earth for the express purpose of being killed for crimes He did not commit.

However, the entire point of the gospel message, of the death and resurrection of Jesus, is to ultimately defeat death, and finally rid the world of death once and for all. So the Bible views death as a very bad thing, and God is working to eliminate it from our planet once and for all, but unfortunately, death is a reality of daily life, and is an necessary part of reigning in some kinds of sin.

How does this parallel the slavery issue?

The first thing you need to understand is that what we generally mean by slavery today, which is forced, life-long slavery based on sex or race, was virtually non-existent when the New Testament was written. The slavery that divided the United States during the civil war is rare in the Bible, and when it does occur, it is not viewed in a positive light at all. The sex slave trade that is so prevalent in the world today is NOT the "kind" of slavery that was practiced in the Bible. So on those two specific "kinds" of slavery, the New Testament says almost nothing, as they were not part of the experience of the first century church.

There were several different kinds of slavery during the first century (when the New Testament was being written), none of them were racial, the most common was the kind we call "bond service," and believe it or not, it was often, although not always, voluntary. That is to say that many of those who were slaves were in that state because they owed some kind of debt, and their bondage was a means of working off that debt. Notice, for example, in the parable that Jesus told above, the issue with each slave was "paying off a debt." Thus, slavery was rarely a life-long issue, and there were laws in existence in the Roman empire that allowed for slaves to earn their freedom (this was also true in the Old Testament, where slaves were to be set free after seven years of service). An internet search on slavery in ancient Rome can verify all of this.

Were there abuses? We're talking about people here, so of course there were abuses, and according to some ancient sources, those abuses were fairly widespread. Either way, however, this "bond servant" practice of the first century, although not desirable, is viewed in the Bible as an unfortunate, but justifiable extension of the "bondage" of debt that is found through out all societies. It is not based on race, or for the purposes of abusing women sexually, but was in place as one of the means of controling and managing personal debt in their economy. Thus, scripture does not address "bond servant" slavery as a moral issue, any more than it addresses financial debt as a moral issue (although the treatment of slaves WAS considered a moral issue). If anything, it was viewed like prison incarceration today: a necessary thing that no one really likes, but for which there are very few realistic alternatives.

Through out the entire Bible, it is clear that bondage and slavery is not good or desirable, and to escape it is a very good thing. The Passover, for example, is a celebration of Israel's escape from RACIAL slavery (one of the few times that racial slavery IS addressed in scripture, and no tolerance is extended to it at all). In the New Testament, sin is compared to the kind of bondage one experiences in the "bond servant" kind of slavery, and we are taught that Jesus was literally tortured and murdered in order to set us free from that bondage. In fact, the wording used is that He "paid our debt" to set us free from the "bondage" of sin, which uses the language of the "bond service" form of slavery to explain how Jesus offers us eternal salvation.

Further, just as God was working to eliminate death from our planet, yet He also set up death penalties to punish and help reign in certain kinds of sin, so God is working to free us from every kind of bondage, yet over the history of our planet has often used slavery as a means of punishing and reigning in certain kinds of disobedience to His laws.

 Just as the Bible uses the word "death" to describe far more than physically dying, it uses "bondage" and "slavery" to describe far more than simple, physical slavery. So you can't just take the appearance of the words "slave" or "master" and extrapolate a general view of slavery in the Bible from any one passage. In the same way that the Bible understands that death is a bad, but inescapable part of life, it also views slavery as a bad, but inescapable part of life. In fact, according to the Bible, every single one of us is a slave to something, whether we like it or not. The only question is who is our master, and to what degree we are enslaved?

The Bible teaches, for example, that being in debt is a form of slavery, and it lays out specific principles to help us escape from this kind of slavery.

The wealthy rule over the poor, and anyone who borrows is a slave to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7).

In a central theme of the entire Bible, it states that the most serious form of slavery is to sin, because it results in eternal death.

Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thank God that, though you were once slaves of sin, you became obedient from your hearts to that form of teaching with which you were entrusted! (Romans 6:16-17)

And in a really interesting twist, the Bible says that one particular kind slavery, that is, slavery to righteousness through Jesus Christ, is a very good thing, and is the only way to be truly free.

And since you have been freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in simple terms because of the frailty of your human nature. Just as you once offered the parts of your body as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater disobedience, so now, in the same way, you must offer the parts of your body as slaves to righteousness that leads to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were "free" as far as righteousness was concerned. What benefit did you get from doing those things you are now ashamed of? For those things resulted in death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become God's slaves, the benefit you reap is sanctification, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in union with the Messiah Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:18-23 ISV)

This kind of slavery frees us to be who we were actually MADE to be by our creator. It is an intentional paradox that the only true liberty to be found in the universe is by becoming a slave of the creator of the universe.

The Bible does not use this kind of wording lightly. It is very serious about all forms of slavery, but particularly the ultimate bad form (sin) and the ultimate good form (righteousness). Notice how the New Testament writers often introduce themselves (note that the Greek word δοῦλος has a fundamental meaning of "slave," but is usually translated "servant" or "bond servant" in most translations when referencing believers, partly to distinguish between our modern concept of a "racial slave" versus the New Testament concept of a "bond servant" - I have reverted back to its fundamental definition below):

Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
(Romans 1:1)

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, To all God's holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)

James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. (James 1:1)

Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (2 Peter 1:1)

So does the Bible endorse slavery? Absolutely.

It very much wants us to become slaves of the Lord Jesus, where we will find real freedom and eternal life, so that we can finally be set free from all other slavery, all of which will harm or kill us.

And . . . Not at all.

The Bible very much wants us to be completely set free from all forms of bondage that are endemic to the human experience: physical slavery, financial bondage, emotional bondage, spiritual bondage and relational bondage. And whenever possible, Christians have always resisted and discouraged all forms of slavery. I gave the quote from Paul, above, where he was giving Christian "masters" instructions about how to treat their "slaves." However, when presented with a situation in which Paul had the chance to do something about "bond servant" slavery, he did.

In the letter to Philemon, Paul literally uses emotional and social leverage to "force" Philemon into a corner on the issue of his slave, Onesimus. In arguing for Onesimus' freedom, he tells Philemon to charge all of Onesimus' debts to his own account (which would effectively set him free), THEN reminds Philemon about how much he already "owes" Paul (implying that Philemon is a "moral" bond servant to Paul), and issues a not so subtle warning that Paul himself will be personally checking up on all this by telling Philemon to prepare the spare bedroom, because he will be visiting soon. Paul uses the gentlest of words, wrapped in the iron of serious social and emotional arm twisting, to make it very clear he wants Onesimus to be set free.

So did Christianity suddenly decide that the Bible's take on slavery was wrong, and we should reject that teaching and condemn slavery? No, not at all.

Christianity recognized that the entire point of the gospel was to set us free from ALL forms of slavery, so that we can become slaves to the one true God, in the only kind of "bondage" that is not really slavery at all. And when the racial slavery of blacks was infecting our country, Christians quickly recognized that this was as unjustifiable as the racial slavery of Israel to the Egyptians, and called it what it was: evil.

So what the Bible does is recognize that some of the milder forms of slavery that are found in our lives are unavoidable, and tend to be endemic to the human experience, thus some of them must be tolerated, but they are NOT endorsed. They are NOT good, they are NOT encouraged, they are NOT supposed to be a part of our lives, and the goal of Christianity is to see us all set free from all of them.

Some, however, such as racial or sexual slavery, are not even to be tolerated.

So, no, Christianity did not suddenly decide the Bible was wrong about slavery. It actually recognized that there are many "kinds" of slavery; some are very bad, but unavoidable (such as slavery to sin), some are very unpleasant, but have to be tolerated (such as financial slavery), and some are unjustifiably evil and must be eliminated (such as racial or sexual slavery).

But for those of us who follow Jesus, the Bible promises that we will eventually be set free from all forms of bondage.

Is the Movie Religulous Correct about Horus and Jesus?

Question:

I recently saw the movie Religulous, and one part was completely devastating for Christianity, where Bill Maher showed how every detail of Jesus' life was copied from Horus. His entire story is an ancient Egyptian myth, so how can you keep believing it?

Answer:

For those who many have never seen Religulous, you can watch the relevant part here.

Before I get into the details, it should be noted that every god in every religion has certain traits in common: they perform miracles, they sometimes raise the dead, they are supernaturally powerful, and most pagan gods engage in sex and produce offspring.

Now, on to Bill Maher's movie, and the claims made within it. It turns out that Bill Maher did not actually read the Egyptian book of the dead, and he got all of his information from a bad series of sources that all originated with the book, "The Natural Genesis," written by Gerald Massey. Massey never documented a single one of his claims about the parallels between Jesus and Horus, and every single thing he wrote about them has been debunked by genuine Egyptologists.

For those who would like to stop reading now, the quick summary of the following section is that every single claim made in the movie Religulous is ridiculous, and completely false. If anyone is interested, almost everything I post here can be verified by a simple Wikipedia search on Krishna, Mithra and Horus.

Now, on to each claim individually.

Claim: Krishna was a carpenter.
Truth: Neither Krishna nor his father are ever mentioned working with wood in any fashion, nor are they ever called carpenters.

Claim: Krishna was born of a virgin.
Truth: Krishna's mother and father were locked in a prison cell where they had seven children prior to his birth, and all of these were the result of sex with her husband, so clearly, she could not have been a virgin.

Claim: Krishna was baptized in a river.
Truth: Baptism is not a Hindu concept, and there is no record of Krishna ever being baptized, in a river or any other place.

Claim: Mithra was born on December 25.
Truth: First, the Bible does not claim Jesus was born on December 25. That idea is first appears in Christian writings in the fourth century. Even today, no one really knows the date of His birth. Second, Mithras was not actually born, as he sprang full grown from a rock, and the date of this event is not recorded anywhere.

Claim: Mithra performed miracles.
Truth: All "gods" are recorded as having performed miracles, in every religion in every age in every culture. That is part of the whole "god" thing.

Claim: Mithra was resurrected on the third day.
Truth: This would be difficult as there is no record of Mithras ever dying, thus, there are no stories of his resurrection.

Claim: Mithra was known as the Lamb, the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Savior, and the Messiah.
Truth: There is no record of any of these terms ever being used in reference to Mithra. The closest is that he was a sun-god, which happens to give off "light." But he was never called, "the light." The word "Messiah" is an exclusively Jewish concept, and is never found in any other culture. Mithra WAS called a "Mediator," however, he was not a mediator between man and god, but between the good gods and the evil gods. Further, almost all of the references we have to Mithra appear more than 100 years AFTER Christianity was already on the scene.

Claim: Horus is the son of Osiris
Truth: Yes, he is described as the son of Osiris. He was birthed as a result of sexual intercourse between two gods, and was not eternal, as Jesus is.

Claim: Horus was born to a virgin mother.
Truth: Isis had sex with Osiris after having reconstructed his various parts (he had been killed and chopped up) and temporarily brought him back to life. His phallus could not be found, so a gold phallus was constructed, and substituted, which allowed her to have sex with Osiris, become impregnated, and later give birth to Horus. Clearly, she was neither a human woman NOR a virgin.

Claim: Horus was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.
Truth: There is no record in any Egyptian text of a guy named Anup the Baptizer, and the concept of "baptism" did not exist in ancient Egypt, so Horus was never baptized by anyone. Clearly, if there is no reference to the guy, he could not have been beheaded.

Claim: Horus was tempt while alone in the desert.
Truth: Horus fought the god Seth in the desert. Seth was not trying to tempt him, he was trying to kill him. Not the same thing.

Claim: Horus healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons and walked on water.
Truth: Horus did perform miracles, as he was a god. But none of these particular miracles are ever recorded as having been performed by Horus. Supposedly there was a monument to Horus that had a spell on it that could heal the sick. If chanted, the spirit of Horus possessed the person and healed them. That's as close as it gets.

Claim: Horus raised Asar from the dead; Asar translates as Lazarus.
Truth: Actually, Asar is the original Egyptian name for Osiris (Osiris is the Greek name). Osiris was briefly brought back to life so that Isis could have sex with him, get pregnant, and give birth to Horus. Horus had nothing to do with this, and Asar is NOT the Egyptian form of the Hebrew name Lazarus.

Claim: Horus had 12 disciples.
Truth: At various times there were four or six guys who followed him around (some of them were semi-gods), and various people at various times would follow him. At no time are 12 followers mentioned, and the total number of followers he had at various times does not add up to twelve.

Claim: Horus was crucified.
Truth: Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, so obviously, it could not happen in ancient Egypt. There are two recorded "deaths" of Horus; one was being chopped up as a child, the other was from poisoning (by Seth). He is often depicted with his arms outstretched, but that is not connected to being crucified, but to his expansive power.

Claim: After three days, two women annouced that Horus, the savior of humanity, had been resurrected.
Truth: As a child, Horus was torn to pieces and the pieces were thrown into the river. He was brought back to life when his mother prayed to the Egyptian crocodile god who collected the pieces for her so she could bring him back to life (remember, his mother was a god herself). No women announced the event.

There are numerous claims from a variety of sources, including books and movies, that the elements of Jesus' story are copies of some ancient pagan gods, including Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, and Krishna. A refutation of each and every one of these claims can be found at numerous places on the web. One that addresses most of these is found here.

Bottom line, despite Bill Maher's assurances, not a single parallel he touts in his movie is in any way historical, or even remotely accurate. It is all false.

The story of Jesus is true, accurate, and completely unique.

For those interested in a little humor, here is a recent parody produced by "The Lutheran Satire" called "Horus Ruins Christmas" that takes on some of these claims in a witty, humorous fashion.

Horus Ruins Christmas