Anyone seen this and actually changed their mind about some things?

Josh-Elliott-27,

That was a huge factor for me. I discovered (years before watching this movie,) an article that compared the similarities between Jesus and many other mythical figures whom predated Jesus by thousands of years. I have never been able to show somebody the astounding similarities between Christianity and all other mythologies, and have them give me a legitimate answer as to "why?".

OK, Ill give you a legitimate Answer why those stories are all so similar. However, it's oen you won't like or accept.

The reason is the same as you already think, although in reverse. All of those srtories are just retellings of the story of Jesus, only applied to other gods. Rather than Jesus beign a retelling of an Ancient pagan Myth, such as the Life of Horus, what happened is that in the 19th Century people liek Kersey Graves and, especially int he case of Horus Gerald Massey took the Outline of jesus's Life and applied it to past Pagan gods.

While tis True that gods like Horus or Dionysus predate Jesus by Thousands of Years, the similarities between Jesus and the other gods on the Lists you read came abotu only n the 19th Century ad are not Ancient, nor were they ever atrributed to these gods before the 19th Century.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

mentattodd -

You will think I am trying to be cute or smug or crass here but this response is sincere.

It's also uninformed and completely wrong.

We actually have more information (historical evidence) on the existence of Santa (St. Nicholas) than we do of Jesus.

No we don't. I'll get to that in momnt but, I'll start by sayign this is an incorrect statement.


I'll also point tu tat having nroe evidence for person X does nto eman we have no evidence at all for person Y. EVen if we had mroe evidence for Saitn Nicolas than for Jesus Christ, that still doesn't eman we have no evidence at all for Jesus. So your argument is really not well funded.

After all, we have nor evience for WInstron CHurchhill than for Plato, but that doens't mean that Plato did not exist or that it's uncertain.

There is documented evidence as to where he lived and the church has records of his "employment".

I know its in quotesbut, the use of the word "Employment" is relaly wrong. Bishops are not Employees of a comoany.


Also, the only "Records' we have ofNicolas Of Myrna is chroniclers writtign abotu him, not direct Church Records. Peopel whote of him, but no official Church reord exists of him sopecificlaly.

We can easily trace how St. Nicholas evolved from a man who preached in what is now Turkey to the man in the red suit with a beard that likes cookies and milk. Archaeologists even have his skull and have created a life-mask to try see exactly what he might have looked like when alive.

A Life Mask is takwen when someone is alive, and cannot bemade off a skull. You can do a reconstruction, but ther is no way you can do an actual Life Mask of someone from their skull.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4987949_life-mask.html


That said, if someone wanted to, they could always insist the bines belonged t soeoen else, jist liekMyhers do with any evidene of Jesus.

Yet, the only data having any reference to Jesus having even existed was written by four men who never met Jesus and only wrote down the stories they were told about him.

This is not True.


For starters, the New Teatament has a Minimum of 9 Authors. That[s 9 men not 4 men. Secondly, some of those men liekly did meet him in peson, and one, Luke, wrote his book about Jesus's Life base don Interviews of eople who had known him.


We also have 1 Peter, an Epistle writtenby Peter who definitlry did kow him, and Jude, and the three epistles of John. Those works are nto contested by any respectable Historian, and are understood as comleltey valid.


You want ot limit this to the Gsooelks and htne want ot say te Gosels were wrtten by men who did not know him, which s not True.


hen there's the fact that the Gospelks were still written during Living Memory of Jesus, ad circulated in an area in which he had lived. The Early CHruch was concentrated in Jerusalem at First. Had Jesus never lived at all, then peopel woudl have known it and rejected the Gospels.


Its not liek they were written centuries later.


Oh, it should also be noted that the only written text of Alexander The Great cmes from a century after he died, and the only works we have to confirm Socratese is Plato, who wrot abotu him decades later. We have mroe for Jeus thanwe have for Socratese or Alexander The Great.


r for that matter, Hannibal, whose famosu exploits, includign his attemto to use ELephants ot conquer ROme, were only known to us via a text that was written over 100 Years later.


Most figures in History that we accet as Real have far less evidence than 27 books by 9 Authors writting within living memory of the man they spoke of.

None of the stories collaborate the others

Actually they do. I know mythers liek to exagerat an sy the Gsels are wildly disagreeign but, even accepting for a moment the claism if discrepancy, the discrepancies are mild, usually reflecitgn orer of events, not the fac that the events took place. The Truth is, the Gosoelks, especially the Firts Thre, do actually cooberate eac other. The Firts Three are so similar many modern Schoalrs think they all came form the same basic soruce material. How can they all be so similar that we think Mathew and Luke used Mark as a SOruce, along with oen other soruce, known as Q, and yet they fail to cooberte each other?

(which one would expect they should)

Not only do they cooberate, but your claim here makes no sense. In modrn Police Reports of accidents that are taken onky 20 Miuets after the crash happened, the reports ofte conflict. Thats not popel tellign abotu theveents decades later, or even a month later, its the same day.


The ides that if you have two written accoutns form two different sources, they'd back ach other up and have no discrepancies is simply silly. It ignores hwo the Real World works.

and if Jesus' birth was so renowned why did only one of the authors discuss it and the other three ignored it?

Jesus's Birth was written of in two of the four Gospels, not in one of them.


Also, men were not renown for their Birth in Ancient ROme.


If you can't get oru facts right, you undermine yoruself.


Mathew and Luke discuss the Birth of Jesus.

From what I can tell Jesus "might" have been a real historical figure but there simply is no proof that he existed.

You also think only oe Gospel records theBirth Narrative, so the odds that you've aculaly looked into the evidence are slim.


No Historian doubts his exisence, other than the self identified Atheisti Activist and Anti-Christian RIchard Carrier, whose sole reason for gettign a PhD was to give himself crdibility when he attacked Christanity.



Even if all we had was the New testament, too many questions woudl emerge if we start with the assumotion that Jesus did not exist than if we accept that he did. Even the irth Narrative codifies the likloihood that a Real man existed, and that's even if you accept the Birth Narrative itself as a legendary addition to his Life, because there woudl e no Reason to write said Narrative the way it as written for a fictional person.



Too many small details wre proven True in the Gospels, and they wer written far too soon after the events, and i additiontot he Gospels we have the letters writtneby Pul, Peter, Jude, and John, all much closer to the events than the Gospels, which all refer to him. And no oen in the Firts Century challened his existance even amongst the phairissees who were most adamant agaisnt him.


Logisticlaly, its easier to accept that Jeuss existed than to accept the spontaneous craton of Christaijity from anonexistent man that no oen challenged evn when it'dbe beneficial to do so.

I know Christians rely on faith

Please dn't start this crap again. Faith does not mean beleiving in somethign without evidence.

but for me I need logic, intelligence, and proof.

No you dn't. You just said oly one Gospel records Jeuss's irth, and completley ignored the other oen that did. You also ignroes the EPistles. Or any problems cr4ate dby assumign Jeuss did not exist.


By the way, the idea that Logic, Intelligence, and Proof are somehow he opposite of Faith is wrong. Again, Faith is not beleivign in somethign you have no evidence for, and often Faith is base don logic, Intelligence, and proof. Faith actually comes from the Ltin World Fidese, and means Trust.


Whater you Trust you have Faith in, becauae Trust is a synonym for Faith.

We call that science.

No, we don't. Science is a specific methodology, not jut he use of Logic, intelligence, and proof.


You also can't rpove anythign Historiclaly hapened with Science.


You can't een prove that CHurchhill said "We shall fight them on the Beeches" with Science.


Also, the whoel trope that Science and Relgiion are two competign camps you have to choosebetween is wrong, its been disproven for 75 Years now. Please drop the idea thta you accept Science instead of Rligion as its rather silly.

There are tons of disparate sources proving that Alexander the Great was real,

No, there aren't.

The only evidence we have of Alexander The Great is a Biograhyof him written abotu a centry later and three scraps of references. Oe just says "O this day the Kign Died", and if we wanted to be persnickerty liek Christ Mythers we cdl say "It coudl be any King".


The simpel fact is, no direct contemproary evidnce exists for Alexander The Great.

and he lived almost 400 years before Jesus.

He also has fewer written accoutns of him from livign memory...


Even if he had more, he conquered the known world, and Jesus lived his enture Life as a subject of the ROman Empire and as an Itenerate Rabbi. Its relaly not as strong a comparrison as you'd think, and yet Ironiclaly we have mroe on Jesus than on Alexander.

The same thing with Socrates.

The only evidence we have of Socratese is Plato. Plato wrote of Socratese some 40 Years after he had died. If we did not have Plato, we'd not know anythign at all about Scratese.


So one souce written 40 years later is a ton fo information form a variety of sruces for you?


I inow you haven't bothered to read the actual History and are unfamiliar with the actual evidence but, what tour sayign is absolutely untrue and easily proven to be untrue.

How come someone as recent as Jesus is so neglected in history and archaeology?

He isn't.


History accept him ont he basis of over 100 witten references to him within the first 60 Years of his Life, by over 30 authors. Meanwhile, what ou said abotu Socratese is not True, you act liek we have a lot of writtigns baotu him for a variety of soruces when in fact we have ony one soruce for him and that's plato, writtign decades later.


Archeology also ony dals in Ohysical objects, so tis not surprisign there's no Archeological evidence fo a man who lived as an itenerate Rabbi in Occupied Judea. Jeuss did nt build palaces or have coins minted with his face on them.

My theory (and it is only a theory) was there was a real Rabbi Jesus who preached something that the Jews of the time disagreed with.

Well, except the Jews who followd him.


Because 90-100% of the Early Christaisn were Jews, and the Chritian Faith did not become an independant Relgiion until after 70 AD.

He inspired Paul enough that Paul went on to found a religion in Jesus' name.

Paul did not fund the Christian Faith. Paul, in fact, strted off killing Christians. Christianity already existed befoe he became Paul and before he began to preach for it.

History and archaeology to a great extent supports this theory.

No they don't.


Do you even kno what Archeology is?

When it was time to chronicle Jesus' life (20 or more years after his death) they realized they did not have any real info other than he preached a new word.

Uhm, most of hat Jeuss preaches came out of pre-existign Jewish tradition, it was mroe a different interpretston as well as the fact that he was claiemd ot be Messiah that was controvesial.


Also, they seemed to have a lot of info on his Life evn in OPauls writtings, and again, the Gospels seem to agree on the basic outline of how his life was. It smroe liekly that the basic events of his Life were accurate in terms of how the Gospels were written.

So they used "some" pagan sources

No, this makes no sense. Not only do we have no actual parrallels between jesus Life and Pagan soruces to actually poitn to, but the Jews, and by extension theChristians, were extrelmely opp[osed to all thigns Pagan, tot he poitn of willignly dyign rather than worhsipping Pagan gods. to say they woudl turn aroudn and use Pagan sorces to fill in the Life of Jesus runs cotnrary to the staunchly Anti-Pagan stances they atulaly took.


And again, the SImilarities between Jesus and Pagangods we hearabotu in Zeiygeist or its soruces arent Real.

that may also have been sources for Judaic prophets to create a back-story.

Nohtign in the Prophets even remotley resembles the Paganis of their day.

I am not denying Jesus may have existed and I am not denying the validity of his mission. But it is interesting the vacuum of evidence about him when history writers and books had already been around for about 400 years by the time he was born (Herodotus, etc.).

Maybe you sgoudl read os of those Hisotry books, tey are far, far less than ou think they were. hey wer enot modern Hisotyr boosk whih relied onheavuy dcuention andcitation and otne included whatever the AUhtors heard was True.

reply share

add reply

formatting help