How profound that quote is, as most of you dont know yet.
From Robert G. Ingersoll.

Religion is the basis of the governments we have today.
Religion and the Bible is nothing more than an Astrologically, Theologically Interpretated Literary, PERSONIFIED.
Jesus Christ did not exist.


In another words, the SON of God is really the worship of our SUN.
-Born on Dec.25th: Sun rises 1 degree NORTH, ushering in more daylight, for in ancient times they would refer to the sun as dying, ressurecting, and being crucified.

Think about it:
the sun walks on water (the reflection on the water surface)
the sun turns water (+fruits) into wine.
the sun brings life to living things
the sun
the sun
the sun
the sun
......................... is expressed throught history as the SON OF GOD, with all the same characteristics!

The 3 kings reffers to Orions Belt, which they followed a star in the east to usher in the sun of god.
THE SUN ....OF GOD.... IS OUR SUN! The sun rose, therefore they followed the stars to the sunrise! It makes soooo much sense.

If you do you math and your homework, the relationships between ancient Egypt and Christian religions is staggering.

The movie Zeitgeist converted me, and i hope it converts you....

Sounds like you're reaching a bit due to an emotional experience you had...

"Reflecting" and "walking" on water are two different things. We also have to remember Peter walked on water as well. Where does the sun fit in with this?

You said the sun turns water into wine, then you added "+fruit". Well, I'm not seeing this. Fruit may grow in a vineyard which is helped by the sun, but I believe the actually winery is a dark place and the "fruit" actually has an abscence from the sun while it's in its barrel becoming wine, so I'm not seeing the connection you're trying to make.

You said the "sun brings life to living things", however the sun can also kill living things. Ever see a worm on a sidewalk out in the sun? The sun does not give it life.

You might try doing your homework again. The library will be your friend. Internet videos repeating the crazy ideas of a guy that did not know what he was talking about will not be.

LOL so should we go and rent the Bible, or just watch sunday afternoon t.v. LOL Crazy ideas? says you........

Religion is not slavery, You can choose religion are not . You do not choose to be a slave , If given the chance you would never become a slave.Always a pleasure.

If your belief in God and Jesus are reliant of faith, why does the Zeitgeist movie or the ideas in it bother any Christians? Why should it matter if the story shows many links to other religions or historical figures?

I find it mainly interesting in a historical sense not in a tearing down Christianity sort of way.

For example; if scholars agreed there were obvious similarities with other religions would it make you doubt your religion?

If you want to do that, feel free, but the Bible would not help you much here. I'd suggest something on ancient Egyptian religion and Hellenistic mystery religions.

I think this line says it all. "The movie Zeitgeist converted me, and i hope it converts you.... :rofl"

Pure fantasy

Perhaps the proper term would be documentary rather than movie, but I haven't seen it yet so I cant judge.

I agree. ive read a bit on Egyptan history and religion and there are a lot of connections to the christian religion.

What is Zeitgeist? I must have totally missed something...

but theyre arent alot of other things that bring people to their knees out there. i mean just because theyre god says so, theyll do it.
and apparently you have to bow to them, in order to pray or worship (in some cases). almost making them seem like theyre not equals.
sounds somewhat like slavery.
and being told how to live as well. but do you have to follow that? no, obviously not. are the morals good? yes.
it can just seem like youre doing it for Someone else. or something else.
IMO

zeitgeistmovie.com

None of this constitutes proof that the Jews or Christians merely dressed up Egyptian material with their own trappings. Moonlight (and any other source of light) also "walks on water". So do (literally) some insects whose weight is so slight that they are supported by the surface tension. Water (with sunlight and soil and a host of other things) turns fruits into wine, but fermentation (last I checked) is also needed so this doesn't take us anywhere. Oxygen also brings life to living things. And by the by, why do we think that primitive Christians were thinking in terms of English homonyms when (supposedly) they equated "sun" with "Son"? Wouldn't you have to speak English to make this work? What proof do we have that the Christians stole anything from Egyptians in the way of religions aside from these incredibly contrived similarities?

Aside from running to Egypt because of the threat to Jesus' life as an infant (recorded in Matthew's gospel) we don't have any proof that Jesus had any contact with Egyptians or Egyptian religions. And even if we could demonstrate that he did we would still have to prove that he was influenced by Egyptian religion. We do know that Persian mystery cults mingled with Egyptian religion existed before and after Jesus and that due to international commerce many within the Greco-Roman world were introduced to these things. However, this is still a far cry from demonstrating that Jesus (or his followers) were influenced by these things or that they merely dressed them up and tacked Jesus' name to them.

One thing that strongly militates against this is that Jesus and his earliest followers were Jewish, and they clung tenaciously to the Jewish story narrative of God's work in the world through Israel. This is obvious by the ways in which Jesus and his followers anchored so much of what they did in this story (check all the Old Testament references in the New Testament). In light of this, why would Jesus or his crew appeal to Egyptian religions when Yahweh's defeat of the Egyptians and their gods at the Exodus was so crucial to Israel's story? And from what we see in the New Testament Jesus and his followers believed that in Jesus Yahweh was performing a second Exodus. In this second Exodus, Yahweh, through Jesus, frees the world from spiritual bondage just as he freed the Jews from slavery under Egyptian rule. The book of Revelations captures this wonderfully, and it is rife with allusions to the Exodus event. Also, the Eucharistic meal that Jesus institutes is without question patterned on the Passover meal that the Jews celebrated to remember God's faithfulness in both Egypt and the Promised Land. A movement so thoroughly anchored in the Exodus event would be resistant to co-opting Egyptian religion and dressing it up to look like something else.

And being that Judaism is filled with stories of miracle-working prophets and other forms of divine intervention, why would Jesus and the early Christians have to "steal" from Egyptian religion (or any other) at all? In the beginning their audience was primarily Jewish, so appealing to any other religion is entirely unnecessary; they had enough to work with from Judaism. And from all the material we have in the New Testament it appears that this is exactly what they did.

Now someone could say, "But when they began bringing this message to the Gentiles they had to appeal to mystery religions!" But this is fraught with difficulties. First, we know that the earliest Christians (even after Jesus' departure) continued to anchor themselves in the Jewish story, making an appeal to Egyptian religion and/or mystery religion needless.

Second, while many try to say that primitive Christians played cut-and-paste with various elements of Egyptian religion/mystery religion to form their beliefs, we can make the case that, actually, the opposite happened. While mystery religions existed before Christianity there is no proof in them of a "son of God" who somehow dies and rises until the third and fourth centuries. In other words, these Christian-esque elements within mystery religions don't pop up until after Christianity has already taken root for a few centuries. This shows us who was stealing from whom. Aside from this, the "dying" and "rising" of demi-gods like Attis, Adonis, and Osiris were not pointing to anything like Jesus' redemptive death for the sake of others or his resurrection as victory over death and the demonic forces of the cosmos. Instead, these "dyings" and "risings" were rooted in cycles of vegetation in the earth. These demi-gods had to die and rise because they were connected to the world in such a way that what happened to the world happened to them. There is no hint of same meaning that Jesus' death had for him or the earliest Christians. There is also no hint of the same meaning that resurrection had for Jesus, his disciples, or his contemporaries.

Lastly, we know that the earliest Christians won converts from the mystery religions. If Christianity was just mystery religion lite, then wouldn't the potential converts just see through this and say, "Hey, I'm already doing this--I just called it Mithras! Because it's essentially the same, I'll just stick with what I'm already into!" And if the early Christians would've willy-nilly been dressing up the mystery religions to win converts, then why keep the Jewish stuff at all? Why not just jettison that and have a mystery religion rooted in some guy called Jesus? In the entire New Testament the early church demonstrates an unwavering desire to anchor everything they do Yahweh's work in the world through Israel. If they merely cut-and-pasted from mystery religions to win converts there's not much of a need to cling to Judaism.

These kinds of unwarranted connections between earliest Christianity and Egyptian/mystery religion are usually assumed first, and then all of the elements mystery religion are "Christianized" so as to create the appearance that Christians were merely taking pieces from them to create something new. However, the evidence points in a very different direction.

To get back to the subject of this thread: If it is true that religion can never reform mankind, because religion is slavery, then what framework of freedom that we're operating with? It's easy to just say, "Obeying a god and his/her/its rules are slavery!" Okay, but what would constitute freedom?
Is freedom no religions at all? Or is freedom rooted in a certain kind of religion?

As a Christian I actually agree that following Jesus does constitute a kind of slavery. I would have a difficult time denying this as the primary metaphor for allegiance to Jesus in the New Testament is that of a master-slave relationship (most of the references to the word "servant" actually are from the Greek "doulos", which means "slave"). However, if the over-arching framework of such slavery is the command to love God with the entirety of my being and to love my neighbor as myself, then the kind of Master who gives such a command and the kind of slavery he demands aren't so bad. I know that many folks reject some bedrock tenets of Christianity, but some of those same folks are fond of the ethics/morals that Jesus and his community embodied and passed on. If love is the over-arching framework, then a form of slavery is unavoidable. Love between beings is characterized by faithfulness, sacrifice, and dependence (among other things). To love is to acknowledge that others have a claim on our lives. While the degree to which we love varies with the subjects of our love (my love for my wife is different from my love for my mother), the characteristics don't change. Some form of slavery (I, too, bristle at this word) is implicit in true love.

So I'm a slave. I'm not a slave because I'm brain-washed. I'm not a slave because I kill people in the name of Jesus. I'm not a slave because I'm hateful or spread hate. I'm a slave because I have a command from my Master to be a lover.

Christianity is not the only religion that expounds on and demands a love-ethos. Is it possible to avoid some kind of slavery if love is crucial to/at the core of a religion?

Mithras and (I think) Horus were both born on Dec. 25th in a cave by a virgin mother. I've heard over the years that Jesus probably wasn't actually born in December because shepherds wouldn't be outside tending flocks in December.

BlueZone,

Greetings, and happy New Year! True, Jesus was not born in the winter; most likely, he was born in the spring. But the celebration of Jesus' birth doesn't start until the 3rd century. And even then it was a part of celebrations that included his life (especially his baptism by John), death, and resurrection. True, Christmas without question has pagan roots that pre-date Christianity. But we're still not dealing with folks who stole the idea of Jesus or his birth from Mithrasism or any other mystery cult. While some Christians (and there was much debate about celebrating Christmas from the beginning) may have used a non-Christian occasion to celebrate Jesus' birth, this is much different from saying that they made up things about Jesus by using mystery cult material.

Well... I'd say that if they presented a false birthday to conform with 3rd century pop-scripture, they made things up about Jesus. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I'm saying that in an effort to make Jesus palatable to the 3rd century spiritual palate they added a bunch of stuff to his legend. I personally think that's sad. Because if, as I believe, Jesus really existed he was (perhaps like Buddha) an Enlightened Being. Wouldn't it be interesting to know the reality of who an Enlightened Being really was (on earth as a human)? It's not like there are zillions of Enlightened Beings around.

Who were these people? We will never know because social politics has beaten us to the chase every time. It's a never ending saga of political correctness in which each generation rationalizes, "Well, what harm could it do if I twisted this fact? What harm could it do if I twisted that fact?"

Sorry to be cynical and idealistic and probably kind of stupid but... I think we as a species have blown the opportunity to know the details of the human Jesus. Maybe next time a prophet is born technology will have created an indelible record of the facts before it gets drowned in political spin.

For one thing Horus was born by his mom f*cking a hommade d*ck out of wood. They couldnt find his fathers.
And Horus wasnt the resurection god. His father who was killed by his brother the wilderness (desert). And it wasnt for your sins or anything that had to do with you. It was just a play the gods act out.

Its like saying Troy and Gladiator were the same cause they both had swords.

BlueZone,

Howdy to you! I don't share your cynicism about our ability to know details about Jesus' life and teachings in light of how some of his people chose to celebrate his birth a few centuries after he lived.

First, by the time someone got the bright idea to celebrate the day of his birth the entire New Testament had already been completed. Not only does the internal evidence from the New Testament bear this out, but numerous church leaders had quoted from every single book long before anyone started celebrating Jesus' birth. The birth narratives in Matthews and Luke were already a part of those gospels centuries before. So the notion that centuries-later celebrations of Jesus' birth somehow mucked up the works when it came to reliably recording the events surrounding his life and the life of the early church is simply not accurate. Besides, the church's goal was not to get Jesus' birth-date correct! They just chose December 25 as the date on which to celebrate it. They added nothing to Jesus' story by doing this (even if we have disagreements with their motives for doing this).

Second, exactly what do we think happened when the Christians began to celebrate his birth? Just because some Christians used the celebration of Mithras' birth as an occasion on which to celebrate Jesus' birth doesn't necessitate that they stole details about Jesus' birth, life, or teachings from the Mithras cult. If I chose to highlight some aspect of Jesus' life during Ramadan it wouldn't necessarily mean that I stole details concerning Jesus from Muslims (though such a thing would be a bit wrong-headed). Synchronizing a religious display of devotion with the religious observances of another group doesn't automatically point to theft of ideas (aside from timing). The Christian religion, in both ethos and theology, bore no resemblance to the mystery cults. If there was a link between the timing of a celebration and theological/ethical indebtedness we would find parallels between Mithrasism and Christianity. No such parallels exist for the reasons I enumerated in my previous post.

Third, keep in mind that the timing of this celebration could've had its roots in an attempt to be culturally relevant. We know from the New Testament that while the earliest Christians (and many Christians throughout the centuries) were adamant about maintaining theological purity, this does not mean that they were trying to stay in a cultural bubble. Simply put, Christians can use symbols and concepts from their surrounding cultures (including the religions of said cultures) to communicate the truth of Jesus. For instance, we see that John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1.1). The Greek term translated "word" is "logos". Here, John uses the Stoic concept of logos to depict Jesus' pre-human identity. Some Stoics believed that the logos was the ultimate reality behind everything (a similar concept exists in Hinduism and some other religions). For Stoics, this logos was an impersonal thing, akin more to a force than a personage. John, though, affirms the truth that is in Stoicism (there is a super-reality behind reality that holds everything together), but locates the identity of the logos in Jesus. He claims that we can know this logos and that, actually, the logos is so interested in knowing us that he became one of us. Here, John is dignifying the truth that is in Stoicism while using it as a spring-board for other ideas that don't necessarily accord with Stoicism. There are numerous examples of this kind of cross-cultural communication in the New Testament. Christians routinely identified that which was true, honorable, dignifying, and beautiful in cultures, and they demonstrated how those things point to the reality of God's activity and purposes in the world. This still happens. Many Chinese translations of
John 1.1 read, "In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God." For many (especially Taoists) the Tao is the ultimate reality that lies behind what we experience. However, the Tao is unknowable, and to even speak the Tao demonstrates that one does not have the true Tao. To be culturally relevant in such societies Christian translators will replace "word" with "Tao" because Tao better approximates what John was getting at with "logos". If folks in the ancient situation could confidently utilize concepts and terms drawn from the surrounding cultures to communicate about Jesus, then picking December 25 to celebrate his birthday is no big deal.

And hey, I'm curious about this statement from you: Because if, as I believe, Jesus really existed he was (perhaps like Buddha) an Enlightened Being. Wouldn't it be interesting to know the reality of who an Enlightened Being really was (on earth as a human)? It's not like there are zillions of Enlightened Beings around. Buddha isn't bad company! For you, what makes Jesus enlightened? Good to be in touch, Blue! And nothing you said was stupid (responding to your comment above).

Mithras was originally Persian. Before Rome. When the Christ myth was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Worshiped for centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long revered by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) Jesus is a new version of an old idea. Jesus was a new Pagan God.
Jesus was the Son of God who suffered, died, and came back to life. But He wasn't the first Son of God who suffered, died, and came back to life. He brought salvation; but He wasn't the God first to do that either. His dad was a God and his mom was a mortal woman; He wasn't the first God there either. It's the same with miracles, disciples, ascending to heaven—the list goes on and on. The great Mithraic festivals celebrated His birth (at the winter solstice) and His death and resurrection (at the spring solstice)

I'm guessing your parents weren't Christian then?

The majority (not all, but a vast majority) of the religious people I've met were trained to be part of that religion from a very young age (babies do not choose to be baptized, most catholic kids do not choose to go to first communion, jewish babies do not choose to have a briss). They didn't choose their religion, their parents chose for them. Any attempt to leave religious organizations is usually met with a lot of resistance, whether it is from their church, or their family.

And about your statement about no one choosing to be a slave; last year I directed a documentary about BDSM....you would be suprised how many people choose to go into lives of full time slavery. It's craziness. But that's a story for another thread haha

In conclusion, comparing religion to slavery isn't much of a stretch

Norwood1026,

Could you please produce any Persian material that posits Mithras as a great teacher who was god and man and who worked miracles, had a group of disciples, and ascended into heaven? I'm not aware of any such Persian ideas. I am aware of folks who Christianize mystery cults by reading Christian ideas into them only to claim thereafter that the Christians stole this thing or that thing. But I've never seen any authentic Persian teaching that claims that Mithras did any of these things. Mithras was not a god-man born of a union between a divine father and human mother. In fact, the Mithras legend states that Mithras arose spontaneously from a rock in a cave. Reading the Judeo-Christian "resurrection" into the rising of a mystery cult demi-god doesn't make said rising a resurrection. Resurrection as Jews and Christians understood it had no parallel in the ancient world. Aside from Judaism and Christianity no other religion boasts of a bodily return from death that finds one's body in a state that is vastly superior to one's pre-mortem existence. This is what happened to Jesus. No other religion envisions the post-postmortem existence in this way.

Of course the sun doesn't actually walk on water, it reflects it. But the point is that it could be said "The sun walks on water", because of the way it looks. And I agree that he or she's reaching a bit. But some of it does make sense.

ZOD,

I'll give you that we can speak of the sun "walking on water" due to its reflective properties. But our ability to speak of "reflecting" as "walking" (or "dancing" or "skipping" or any other action) can't provide any kind of vital evidence that early Christians (or any Christians) stole the story of Jesus walking on water from pagans. This fails to make the case just as much in Zeitgeist fails to make the case. I did not have time to view the entire Zeitgeist movie, but I did have time to view the part that speaks of the alleged parallels between the Jesus story and Egyptian/mystery cult religion. One does not have to be a Christian to see through this thinly veiled attempt to make connections that flatly do not exist. In fact, many Christian and non-Christian scholars have railed against this kind of pseudo-scholarship. The makers of Zeitgeist have not done their homework, and in many instances they simply lied.

I think I may have been one of the only who watched the documentary.

There were three parts: 1) how the story of Jesus was not exclusive to the biblical one, and how alot of the things in the bible are simple mis inturpreted. Well DUH!!!!

2) How it was not planes that brought down the WTC, but were just a decoy to the bombs strategiacially placed, and structure bearing beams cut to bring them down, plus the 3rd building, the pentagon, and the questionable mess left from the one plane that crashed in a field. Terrorism from your own country. THIS is worth watching.

3) How the national banks are holding you in slavery.

Good show!! Very informative!!

I am glad to be living in Canada, mostly off the grid Yeah for me to be so well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

People one day will wake up, but it will involve alot of pain... I say it over and over. Deception, lies, control control control... Thats what its all about.

The Jesus thing... I wish I were like him... But I think the whole idea of God is crap. Only because I see the truth, because I spent 32 years dedicating myself to sifting through human reasonings, and locating truth.
Tag, you're it.

Little Bear et al,

Can anyone produce any Egyptian document or a document from the mystery cults that can confirm anything that the makers of Zeitgeist purport? I have never seen any of the proponents of these views produce anything that can substantiate their claims. There are a few HUGE problems with what they are saying.

First, no one claims that Mithras or any other salvific figure in the mystery cults appeared in space, time, and history to proclaim anything. Because
there was no emphasis on the historicity of these mythic figures, the members of the cultus really weren't concerned with this.

Also, the details about Horus and Mithras (among other deities) are all screwed up (i.e. falsified) in Zeitgeist! There is no record in ANY Egyptian story of Horus' birth being occasioned by an Eastern star, three wise men, or his mom's impregnation by the Holy Spirit! There is also no evidence that Horus was a teacher at age 12, performed healing miracles, walked on water, was baptized (by anyone), was betrayed (by anyone), was crucified, died, and was "resurrected", or that he was called "The Truth", "The Light", "Lamb of God" or "Good Shepherd". As for having 12 disciples, there is some mention of four, semi-divine followers and a multitude of men who rode into battle with Horus, but the number 12 in reference to disciples appears nowhere.

Similarly with Mithras we find no evidence of a virgin birth (he emerged spontaneously from a rock); no evidence of 12 disciples who followed him (though he had some animal companions and a few [not twelve] human companions); no evidence or details concerning Mithras' death OR his "resurrection" (so we don't even have evidence that Mithras died to begin with!); and no evidence that he was referred to by ANY of the titles ascribed to Jesus Christ except "mediator" (and even so this title only pointed to the fact that Mithras was a mediator between the good and evil deities of Zoroastrianism, not that he was a mediator between God and humankind as with Jesus).

Here's an example of how folks discover so-called parallels between Christianity and mystery cults: Some say that the Christians "stole" the sacraments of baptism and communion (Lord's supper) from part of the Osiris myth. The supposed parallel? Osiris' brother (Horus) cut him into pieces and threw him in the Nile river. So because Osiris was dismembered and thrown into water, and because the Osiris myth existed prior to Jesus, then the Christian stole communion (Jesus' "dismemberment") and baptism (hey, it happens in water, right?) from the mystery cult devotees. This intentional confusion of categories sadly dominates much of the discussion about the influence of mystery cults on early Christianity. Just as it is irresponsible to equate Mithras' "rising" with Jesus' resurrection, it is irresponsible to mingle things that are essentially different, no matter how many apparent similarities there are.

The mystery cults figures didn't proclaim to be "god" in the Jewish monotheistic sense, and they were not viewed that way by their devotees. They were more like demi-gods (at best), and paying homage to them looking very little like the homage paid to the Jewish God. If one were to ask a mystery cult devotee if Mithras or Adonis or Attis were "god" in the sense that Jesus portrayed himself as God, he/she would not be able to fit the demi-god into the same category. A self-revealing deity who is immanent and transcendent in the world he created and who works to redeem his creation was in no way what the mystery cults deities looked like. At best, these deities were figures to which one paid tribute for the pursuit of ecstatic experiences. Self-revelation in space, time, and history, the redemption of a wayward creation, and radical divine self-involvement were in no way a part of mystery cult mythology.

No religion--including the mystery cults--has anything like the Jewish theology/belief in resurrection. The dying and rising "saviors" of the mystery cults did not give of themselves sacrifically for the sake of the world's redemption. They died because they were so tied to the earth (some pantheism involved here) that when the winter came, they died with the vegetation. In the spring, they rose with the vegetation. That is hardly "resurrection." The Jewish belief in resurrection is rooted in (among other things) the belief that God would vindicate the righteous martyrs and the righteous dead. Jews before and after Jesus maintained that at the end of time, God would judge the world, finding the faithful in Israel to be in covenant faithfulness with Him and judging the wicked in Israel and in the Gentile world. What the Christians claimed (and still claim) about Jesus is that what God was supposed to do at the end of time for Israel, he did in the middle of history for Jesus. Jesus died a righteous death that in some way was redemptive for the sake of Israel and the world. No one before or after Jesus ever followed a failed (i.e., dead) messiah! At best, they would have remembered him fondly, but they did not follow him. A dead messiah simply was not the messiah. Christians maintain that God vindicated Jesus, thusly authenticating his death as God's victory, not Jesus' defeat. And resurrection was not a mere coming back from the dead. Jesus raised people from the dead during his ministry, but no one ever claimed that these people were resurrected. Why? Because resurrection was more than just coming back from the dead. Resurrection involved God's raising of the dead to new life, a state in which the body could not die again, a state in which the resurrected one had power over sin, death, and hades. This is resurrection. The mystery cults have nothing like this. No religion outside of Judaism (and Christianity and Islam which are derived from Judaism) has anything like this.

Many make the charge that the early Christians stole this or stole that from the mystery cults simply because some (and not all) of the mystery cults existed in some form before Jesus. Two big problems with that, though, are as follows: a) Some of the elements inherent to the myths of mystery cult demi-gods were already present in Judaism. For instance, someone says, "Well the Christian view of Jesus as great teacher, a miracle-worker, and a dying/rising savior can be found in the (earlier) stories of Horus or Osiris." But this would be unnecessary for Christians to do concerning Jesus. Jesus and his earliest followers were Jewish. Jewish religion was rife with prophetic figures who taught profound things and worked miracles. Also, the notion of sacrificial death was a major part of atonement theology as seen in the Passover, levitical law, and other instances in the Torah. Resurrection, in addition to being entirely different from anything mystery cults believed about the "rising" of their demi-gods, was categorically a Jewish concept. The Christians had too much material available to them via Judaism to have to turn to mystery cults for influence. The New Testament (whether one agrees with/believes in it) demonstrates an obvious and unabashed reliance upon Jewish theology and practice, lifting from mystery cults.

I asked to see Jesus, and I did not like what I saw. These that were protrayed on the film, I have heard of it all before and no form of deliverance of truth is redeemed necessary in my eyes, pertaining this issue. because I do not give a ratts ass what bickering can be wrought both back and forth it is just slanderous bickering. Unless one remembers what happened back in those days, it is merely the form of TELEPHONE playing itself out.

These people who created this documentary are to be considered BRAVE to dispute such an unproven yet fully accected illusion such as religion.
The point I was making is why fight over falshood, when we can look at the evidence that they have incorporated into their next section of lies:American Government. That is a more concrete issue that is effecting your very hearts and minds IN THIS DAY
and look, think, reflect, dwell on that... It is good information

Religion is a mess, I do not believe any of it, it is all conjured up by the thoughts of man. I have conquered that monster in my life.

Religion. Ha. Spit. ptewey. The truth, well that is completely different.

Little Bear,



Whether or not you like the New Testament portrait of Jesus the material in Zeitgeist is simply false for all the reasons I enumerated in my previous posts. Notice, I did not appeal to believing in Jesus as a prerequisite for rejecting what's in Zeitgeist; I merely pointed out the numerous flaws in claiming that Christians stole from the mystery religions/Egyptian religion.

Being that you don't give a "rat's ass" about "bickering back and forth" (I'd call it having a discussion, honestly), then why post anything? I'm not saying this to dissuade you from posting. It's just that this kind of discussion is what we're all doing here, whether we agree with one another or not. You can't put your views out there only to claim, "I don't really care anyway," when confronted with a view that is different from your own. And I'm not committing "slander" by positing an opposing viewpoint any more than the makers of Zeitgeist are committing slander by getting their point out.

Comparing the oral tradition in the Jewish culture (or any other culture) to a game of telephone is a poor analogy. Oral cultures in no way work like this. In the game of telephone you sit folks down in a room with one person receiving some information. The first person then shares the information with another (usually through whispering) without the input of the other folks in the group. This process is repeated throughout the entire group until you get to the last person. Everybody has a good laugh when they compare the original information with what the last person has to say. Now do we really think this is how oral cultures (ancient and contemporary) work? Anthropologists who study these cultures routinely denounce this presupposition. Among other things, oral cultures work communally to preserve the stories that are central to their group identity! In other words, no individual is quietly whispering in the ear of another individual. In oral cultures tradents (tradition-bearers) function as historians and story-tellers for entire communities. Their transmission of the stories are more akin to performances rather than mere spewing of information. They perform said stories in the hearing of the entire community, and the community is free to correct them if they get something wrong. This is a far cry from a game of telephone. The anthropological data from numerous cultures bears this out. Just because folks in ancient cultures did not have email, newspapers, or radio doesn't mean that they could not accurately recount or pass on information concerning events. Also, just because we have all these things doesn't automatically mean that we accurately pass recount or pass on information! In the super-market check-out line I am reminded of this as I see tabloid newspapers and magazines. The tabloid industry is a billion-dollar money-maker rife with scandalous journalism. Having our kind of technology is no assurance of better truth-telling.



Why are the makers of Zeitgeist "BRAVE"? Critiquing Christianity isn't really all that revolutionary in the West. Western culture has been on the skids concerning Christianity for some time now. It's not very brave to critique it. But brave or not, the info still has to be accurate. We can't let the Zeitgeist crew off the hook simply because they are brave. If I was in a strict Muslim country that has a highly inflexible view of Sharia law and I decided to put out a book/movie that says scandalous things about Muhammad and Islam with no historical or factual warrant you couldn't just let me off the hook because of my "bravery." Again, even if you can't stand religion in general and Christianity in particular you still have to have some cogent evidence to back up specific points that you make. The Zeitgeist crew doesn't even come close to providing any reasonable proof to back up what it's saying about Jesus and the early church. Making a connecting between Jesus and the zodiac simply because Jesus had 12 disciples and the zodiac has 12 signs is simply poor scholarship.

.

Okay, so you don't like religion. That's cool. But is an uncritical embrace of specific rejections of religion better than blind faith? Even if you're going to reject religion/Christianity, do so with better material than the Zeitgeist film offers. This stuff is simply not worthy of your time or your intellect. Blind skepticism is no better than blind faith.

I have spent two years studying the bible, searching...
I have taken 3 theologian courses, through Moriah institute of christian studies. If I had continued through these programs, I would have become an ordained minister which was my hope. I spent an eventual 12 hours a day, seven days a week study of the biblical text, plus all the cross reference books.

Mister (I assume)

I have enough of my own brains to realize it was written by man, and not an ounce from a loving God.

I am tired of spouting scripture, so I spend not an ounce of energy on deliberating proof. I feel no urge to prove or dispute anything.
As to the reasoning behind the fact I have replied, is because I think people should watch the video.
NOT because of what they say about jesus
but what they say about your ****ing president. My god, isnt that more important to an american? Look who killed all those people in the wtc, the bombing, the screwed evidence... That is news.

Religion I spit on it, but as to what real people are doing to my neighbor, I wonder what they are doing to us?!?
Most of Canada's mills, manufacturing plants, businesses... bust. (I have just moved from a small town where there was 2 pulp and papermills, 3 saw mills, and they are ALL shutting down because nobody in the states will buy.(not a bad thing overall though, as this is exactly how change is made)
But common, the american govt. is just plain ****ing you all up the ass, how does it feel?
I know you're from chicago, so I assume you have a point of view on that.

explain please how christ's credentials are relevant to the original topic.

Little Bear,

Look, I can tell that the Zeitgeist film resonates with you because of your anger toward the U.S. government. Believe it or not, I can sympathize with you. Though my wife and I currently live in the Chicago area, we just moved here from New Orleans, which is my hometown. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina I saw the ineptitude of the U.S. government firsthand. We lost everything in Katrina, and I do think that if our country weren't in Iraq we would've been in a better position to give aid to the Gulf Coast area devastated by Katrina. So though I differ with the Zeitgeist (and you) about Jesus and 9/11, I do understand your overall frustrations with the U.S. government.

Nik Xues,

Greetings. Sorry to have taken so much time away from original purpose of this thread (though the title and the initial post are a bit at odds). Below is an earlier attempt on my part to deal with question of whether religion brings reformation or slavery.

There are those who would argue that you should not have the right to choose your religion...

Christianity was not "stolen" from Egypt. It developed in Judah, mostly around a series of stories about what was probably a half-dozen or so men named Jesus. Paul took these stories and had a "revelation" that nobody else had, then added his own ideas ("Christianity" should more-properly be called "Paulism."). For about 250 years followers of the "Prince of Peace" fought and killed each other over what the "truth" was until Constantine, to bring peace to the empire, ordered them to make up their minds.

Under orders from the emporer, church fathers settled most of their differences. Constantine settled a few of them himself (It was Constantine who decided that Jesus' birth would be celebrated on December 25th (Mythra's birthday)). Those who wouldn't agree to the final document were stripped of their authority and banished. Only 70 years after it was legalized, Christians successfully criminalized all other religions within the empire.

Christinaity did borrow a few ideas from Egypt: the story of Herod's ordering the death of babies probably didn't happen in real life (Tacitus and Josephus, both of whom wrote about everything under the sun, never wrote about this.). It was added to give the story symmetry (It appears that there actually was a Hyksos pharaoh who ordered the children of slaves killed.).


Judaism, on the other hand, borrowed from Egyptian history to a huge extent. The "sojourn" matches up very well with the Amarna Period. "Moses" is an Egyptian word meaning "child." Moses' mother was Jochebed (an Egyptian word meaning "Yahweh's Queen".). Moses' father-in-law was Jethro (a Hebrew rod meaning "the increase of Ra" or "Priest of Ra."). "Joseph" is an Egyptian word meaning "Great Seth," probably derived from the name of the leader of a slave revolt late in the reign of Horemheb.

Read the 104th Psalm and compare it to the Egyptian Hymn to the Sun. They are VERY similar. The Hymn to the Sun was written by either Ay or Akenaten. Was the 104th Psalm written by a Pharaoh? Akhenaten worshipped the sun-disk, which he referred to as "Aten." The name turns up in Jerusalem as Adon/Adonai, another name for the Jewish god.

The period of "wandering" in the Sinai coincides with Egyptian mining activities there. The two principle mining sites were at Serabit el Khadim (Rephidim) and Har Timna, both of which are candidates for Mt. Sinai.

It is impossible to know whether the Hebrews got monotheism from the Egyptians, or the Egyptians got monotheism from the Hebrews, but either way, the similarities are astounding.

What I have mentioned here is but a tiny fraction of the evidence supporting an Egyptian origin for Judaism.
Doug

Doug1o29,

Howdy. Hope the new year is going well for you! As you have probably guessed from some of my previous posts on this topic, I do disagree with some of the points you've made. While Paul's experience with the resurrected Jesus differed from that of the other apostles in that he did not walk with Jesus before the crucifixion. However, the already-existing church leaders had no problem believing Paul's experience to be every bit as valid as theirs. If not, why would they allow him to be included among the apostles? They could have easily rejected him, but they chose not to. Paul had no power whereby he could weasel his way into the early Christian movement against the will of the church leaders. If we're operating under the Paul-stole-Christianity theory, then we have to ask why the earliest Christians seemed to have no problem with Paul (other than their shock over the fact that a guy who once persecuted them now was one of them!). Also, we have to ask how Paul took over. There is simply no evidence at all that Paul took the rug from under the earliest church.

As for your allegation that the earliest Christians "fought and killed each other over what the 'truth' was until Constantine," please demonstrate that Christians killed each other before Constantine came along. No one, not even Christianity's earliest critics, claimed that Christians killed each other. This simply did not happen. Have some Christians done horrible things to one another at some points in history? Sure. But violence of any kind was entirely unknown in the earliest, pre-Constantine movement. Also, while Christians did have to deal with some heresies prior to Constantine keep in mind that heresy was defined over and against that which was commonly believed to be true among Christians. In other words, only agreement over what is true about Christianity provides the proper basis to evaluate that which is false. This kind of understanding was already present before Constantine. And Constantine did not form any kind of doctrine. It has become a late 20th-/early 21st-century legend to claim that Christianity was this confused amalgam of beliefs until big, bad Constantine came on the scene and unified everybody. Constantine in no way contributed to the formation of Christian doctrine. Sure, the council of Nicea was convened while he was emperor, but this doesn't point to his influence.



Constantine's influence in establishing a date for the celebration of Jesus' birth doesn't speak to his influence over Christian doctrine. The Nicea council (325 AD) didn't even convene for this. Among other things, they convened to systematize what the church had already believed: that Jesus was fully divine and fully human simultaneously. Constantine had no stake in this: He was already emperor, and he had already curried the favor of the church because he had declared Christianity to be legal religion (313 AD), thus bringing the latest round of persecution of Christians (which lasted from 303-312 AD at the behest of Emperor Diocletian) to a close. You are right that later in the 4th century the Constantinian regime criminalized all other religions within the empire. This is very instructive for all Christians because it shows us the perils of forcing our religion on others through collaboration with political forces. This was shameful, and there's no excuse for it.

How is the story of Herod's murder of the kids in Judea linked with borrowing from Egypt? Sure, there's a parallel with the Egyptian slaughter of Jewish males during the Hebrews' captivity in Egypt, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Herod was notorious for being blood-thirsty. I'm paraphrasing, but Augustus Caesar said something to the effect of, "I'd rather be Herod's pig than one of his sons." Here, Caesar was pointing to Herod's murder of his own sons. It's not a far stretch to think that Herod would do this to children so he could snuff out a potential heir to his throne. Just because there is similarity between the two accounts doesn't diminish its historicity. Also, just because Tacitus and Josephus did not record every single thing (including this) that the gospel writers record doesn't necessarily mean that the gospel writers (here Matthew) made things up. There are a great many things that the gospel writers record that don't appear in the works of Josephus or Tacitus, and yet many scholars (Christian and non-Christian) believe them to be true accounts of actual events.



Your arguments for Judaism's "borrowing" from Egyptian history/religion seems to be rooted only in the Egyptian linguistic roots of words that appear in the Hebrew bible (Old Testament). But why must this point to borrowing? All this means is that the interaction between the Hebrews and the Egyptians recorded in Genesis and Exodus is probably pretty accurate. An amicable relationship between Egypt and Abraham's kids (through Joseph's advocacy) is recorded in Genesis. In fact, Joseph was an official in Egypt according to this account. Also, according to the Exodus account Moses grew up in an Egyptian household. All this shows is that the relationship between Hebrews and Egyptians was as intricate as is portrayed in Genesis and Exodus. I'd have to check on the linguistic things you mentioned, but linguistic influence need not point to borrowing of religious ideas.

As for the similarities between Egyptian texts and Psalm 104, similarity in style doesn't mean religious borrowing. And such similarities don't necessarily point to Pharaoh authorship of Psalm 104. Why couldn't a Jewish psalmist write a psalm to Yahweh in an Egyptian-influenced style? Why does any hint of a similarity between Judaism and something/Christianity and something else always point to Jewish or Christian "theft" of ideas? In fact, I'll go one better than this. Check out Proverbs 30-31. Some of the verses (30.1 and 31.1) point to a non-Jewish origin for these sayings. So what? Non-Jewish nations had knowledge of Yahweh! Balaam was a Gentile priest-prophet for Yahweh (Numbers 22-25). Melchizedek king of Salem was a priest-king for Yahweh (Genesis 14). The claim is never made in the Hebrew bible that no nation aside from Israel knows who Yahweh is. Israel's uniqueness was rooted in the fact that it is in the only corporate, ethnic nation through which God works for the sake of his world, not in the fact that Israel was the only nation who knew who Yahweh was. So when we see other cultures who knew something about the God of Israel this is entirely consistent with what we see in the Hebrew bible.

When there is an intersection between Egyptian history and Jewish history, that could mean that Egyptian-Jewish encounters are every bit as historical as the Jews claim them to be.