The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Part 5

I have blogged on four of the five pagan gods that Zeitgeist claims had an influence on Jesus and Christianity and it seems that a solid 90% of the claims made at this point turned out to be false. As for the remaining 10%, it could be classified as correct but only when one oversimplifies the evidence. At this point there is no use defending the claim of the film that it is attempting to be academically correct because it is obvious that it has not put in the effort, as we have seen in my last four posts.

Next up is the god Mithras of the Roman cult. According to Zeitgeist, Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25, had twelve disciples, performed miracles, was dead for three days and then resurrected. Also it mentions that Mithras’ holy day is Sunday. – Pretty much the same old list given for the other gods mentioned by the film.

Mithraism began to be practiced by Romans in the late first century A.D. but didn’t enjoy widespread membership until the mid-second century A.D. It was a “mystery cult” so as a result there are no sacred writings of the cult like there are in other ancient religions such as Christianity, Hunduism and Buddhism. It is also doubtful that any such sacred texts ever existed.

There exists the popular misconception that Christianity and Mithraism were in bitter competition for the heat and soul of the Roman empire. — This is not true! The truth is that the Roman cult of Mithraism only allowed men to join and excluded women. Christianity, being much more open to membership, was therefore at an advantage.

Also, despite the fact that several Roman emperors were initiates in the cult of Mithras it was never instated as the official Roman religion. (Text Link)

Now about the claims that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, with what is was able to research (click here) it turns out that,

December 25th was Mithras’sparticular festival, when the advent of the new light and the god’s birth were celebrated. This birth was in the nature of a miracle, the young Mithras being forced out of a rock as if by some hidden magic power. (Emphasis mine)

Mithras’ was born from a rock, not a virgin woman — that is unless anyone would like to use the pretty pathetic excuse that the rock he was born from, due to not being a sexual object, was a virgin.

As for Mithras’ birth on December 25, Pagan researcher, Ceiswr Serith, in points out that this detail is more complicated to answer. December 25, he says was the birthday of the sun, Sol. The question then becomes if Mithras and Sol are the same person. He then says that sometimes they certainly seem to be. The best conclusion to come to is that Mithras both is and isn’t the sun. (See “What Mithraism Isn’t“)

He then goes on to mention,

The date of Christmas is not particularly important in the origins of Christianity, and has no bearing on Christian theology. It is worth noting, however, that the feast of the birthday of the sun, while definitely Pagan, wasn’t pre-Christian. It was only established in 274 CE by the emperor Aurelian. Even more significant, the most important feast day of Sol Invictus wasn’t even on December 25th, but rather took place in October. All in all, then the idea that Christians took the date of Christmas from Mithraism is shaky at best, and insignificant to boot.

So not only is December 25 irrelevant to Christianity, the pagan holiday was instated centuries after Christianity really got under way and spread through the Roman empire. Try searching for this information on “Jesus-Myth” websites, books and films.

As for the claim that Mithras had twelve diciples Serith says,

There are [ . . . ] no twelve companions. Perhaps this idea came from the fairly common representation of the circle of the zodiac surrounding Mithras and the bull. Whatever the source, the point is made moot, since as we have seen Mithras didn’t travel or teach, so he would have had neither companions nor followers.

As for miracles, the only attested miracle of Mithras is the miracle of water comming from a rock, but this has no resemblance to any miracle that Jesus performed.

The claims made by Zeitgeist that Mithras died for three days and then was resurrected are totally false. The fact is that what we know is that Mithras, without dying, was taken to heaven in a chariot. (Text Link) — And as for Sunday being a holy day, Serith points out he has found evidence of no such thing. Besides, having been raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, it wouldn’t matter to me anyway.

Finally Ceiswr Serith calls into doubt the idea that the Roman god Mithras is the same as the Persian god Mithra, saying the two are the same in name only. To back up his point he mentions differences between the Mithra of Persia and the Mithras of the Roman cult. There are certain details in the Roman Mithraism that don’t have anything to do with the Persian Mithra (which dates to 2000 BC),

Small groups, initiations, masculine exclusivity, underground worship, the god killing a bull, astrological symbolism – aren’t found in the Persian worship of Mithra. Roman Mithraism can therefore not be said to date back to 2000 BCE; it was a new religion that appears rather suddenly in the Roman empire.

As I have mentioned, Roman Mithraism was introduced late in the first century AD. And it so happens that the first archaeological evidence that appeared in the Roman empire is dated to the year 90 AD. That indicates that, rather than being Pre-Christian, Roman Mithraism was actually Post-Christian.

Serith points out,

This date doesn’t require much comment. It shows something that may seem radical: any influence between Mithraism and Christianity would have had to have flowed from Christianity to Mithraism, rather than the other way round. Mithraism is not, in fact, a pre-Christian religion.

It has to be emphasized that Ceiswr Serith is not a Christian apologist. He is a pagan researcher who describes the idea of Christianity borrowing from Mithraism as “garbage in, garbage out.” — The Encyclopedia Britannica also confirms this fact pointing out,

There is little notice of the Persian god in the Roman world until the beginning of the 2nd century, but, from the year ad 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. This renewal of interest is not easily explained. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. ad 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world.

The truth is that Roman Mithraism is actually post-Christian and therefore if there was plagiarism, it was most likely the Mithraists who are the guilty ones. The more roughly dated evidence of Mithraism in the Roman Empire places it in its most early introduction in the really late first century AD or to the early second century, many years too late to be of any relevance to Christian origins. But try telling that to the “Jesus-Mythers.”

Even though there are many skeptics that advance the false claims that Christianity copied Mithraism, there are other skeptics that, to their credit, have refuted those false claims and they deserve recognition. (Click here) — Zietgeist, however, like other Jesus-Mythers has shown that it doesn’t care about the facts and academic correctness as long as it has an anti-Religion agenda to advance.

The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Part 4

In this blog I have been investigating the claims made by the film Zeitgeist that Jesus Christ is mearly an imitation of several other pagan gods that pre-date Christianity. However, so far I have investigated the first three of the five deities listed such as Horus, Attis, and Krishna and so far these claims have turned out to be bogus. This shows that the claim the film makes about wanting to be academically correct is just empty words.

Next up, the film then goes into a description of the Greek God, Dionysus. First, the film claims that Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, was known as the “King of kings,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” And it also says he was resurrected after his death.

Dionysus was God of wine and the fertility of nature. He was also the son of the the greek god Zeus and the mortal woman Semele. — He was also said to be “twice born” because after his mother had been destroyed by Zeus’ thunder and lightning, Zeus rescued him from his mother’s ashes and sewed him into his thigh until the time had come for him to be born.

According the the Encyclopedia of Mythica,

Because Zeus slept with Semele secretly, Hera [Zeus' wife] only found out about the affair after the girl was pregnant [with Dionysus]. (Brackets mine, Emphasise mine)

The bottom line: Semele was not a virgin when Dionysus was conceived, therefore showing yet more intellectual dishonesty on the part of the film makers. Also, I have found no evidence that December 25 is the date of Dionysus’ birth or that it had any importance to him. — Not that it matters because that date has no significance to Christianity.

As for miracles, I have found none. That’s not to say that there aren’t any cases. But even if there were it would not mattar because, as I have said before on another post, miracles are a given and are expected of any divine being.

There are those that attempt to tie Jesus’ miracle of turning water to wine to Dionysus because the latter was known as the god of wine to the Greeks. (John 2: 1, 11) However, as far as I can tell, Dionysus didn’t turn water into wine though he was a wine-maker. He was, however, the god that showed mortal man how to make wine among other things.

I cannot confirm or deny that Dionysus was called either “king of kings” or the “Alpha and the omega.” — Considering that Zeus, not Dionysus was the king of the gods, I imagine that Zeus would be more likely to have been called the former. (Text Link) However,  I cannot even find that title of “king of kings” for Zeus either. But certainly if Dionysus had usurped such a title I would wonder why Zeus didn’t kill him off to protect his authority.

As for the death and resurrection of Dionysus (click here),

Hera had the newborn Dionysus killed by a couple of Titan assassins who tore him to bits, even though he kept trying to escape them by changing forms to hide from them. When he died a pomegranate tree began to grow where his blood had fallen. Disconcerted by this, the Titans decided to be on the safe side and  boil the pieces of his body in a great cauldron.

Luckily he was resurrected by his grandmother (though in some accounts it was by his half sister, Athena) and was entrusted to the goddess Persephone for safekeeping.

So even though it is true that there is a death and resurrection, as usual the details are way to different for one to conclude that this had any influence on Christianity and the Passion of Christ. The Myth of Jesus, as proposed by Zeitgeist seems to be falling for the logical fallacy that since there is death and resurrection in both stories then therefore one had to have copied the other. However this is due to disregarding the vast differences between the two. — Dionysus was murdered when he was a newborn , his body was then dismembered and boiled — A very different story than that of Jesus.

The only other death and resurrection account is that “according to tradition, Dionysus died each winter and was reborn in the spring.” (Click here) From all this evidence it seems that all the claims that Jesus is a copycat of Dionysus is unfounded on the wishfull thinking of Athiests that are willing to go to any lenghths to prove that Christianity and the story of Jesus are not true. Unfortunately for them I actually check my facts.

The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist– Part 3

The film Zeitgeist begins with list of pagan gods such Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and Mythra. It goes through the list of details associated with Jesus Christ and then applies them to these pagan gods in order to create the impression that Christianity is only a copycat religion. However, viewers (whether believers or skeptics) should watch this film with the realization that there is an agenda behind it. — And I advise anyone reading this to do the same with what I am about to say as well.

So, please bear with me as I go over the facts of this matter:

After Zeitgeist finishes its claims about Attis the film then makes similar claims about Krishna that he was born of a virgin, a star in the east announced his birth, performed miracles with his diciples and was resurrected upon his death.

According to the story of Krishna’s birth, Kasma (his uncle) offered to be the charioteer for the wedding of his sister, Devaki in her marriage to Vesudevu. While he was driving the chariot to the wedding hall he then heard a voice which said that the eighth child of his sister would destroy him. After hearing this, he decided to kill his sister on the spot.

However Vesudevu begged Kasma not to kill Devaki promising to hand over to him any child they would have and Kasma agreed. Every time the married couple had a child, they handed him over to Kasma. The seventh child, however was saved when the parents slipped it passed the sleeping guards.  And when it came time for the eighth child to be born Kasma decided not to risk anything and had both Vasudeva and Devaki locked up in a dungeon and there Krishna, the eighth child, was born. At that moment, Vasudeva’s chains fell off and he decided to escape with his child. He replaced him with a female infant thinking Kasma wouldn’t kill her. Kasma, however, attempted to kill her not knowing she wasn’t the child he was looking for. However she disappeared before any harm could happen to her.

Now first, as for the claim that Krishna’s mother Devaki was a virgin at his birth according to the story of Krishna,

Krishna was of the royal family of Mathura, and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva, a noble of the court.

Krishna was the youngest of eight children meaning his mother Devaki could not possibly have been a virgin at the time of his birth. The story clearly says that Kasma would be destroyed by her eighth child. Besides, there is nothing in the story that implies that his birth was miraculous in the slightest. From the story of Krishna’s birth, it is obvious that there is virtually no resemblance to the birth of Jesus.  Not to mention, there is no star in the east that proclaims his birth.

It is true that Krishna performed miracles. But, being a god in his own right, this is a given and is not relevant because miracles would only be expected from a deity. (Click here) — Also there is an apparent parallel between Kasma who wanted to kill Krishna and Herod the Great who wanted to kill Jesus according the Matthew chapter two. But this is the only similarity between the two narratives. Considering all the differences, the only parallel seems pretty trivial.

Now what about his death and resurrection? — The fact of the matter is that Krishna was not crucified. According to sacred Hindu writings (See “Mahabharata 16: 4“ ) he was accidentally shot and killed by a hunter that mistook him for a deer.

The hunter, mistaking  Keshava [or Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of Keshava. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendour.

When the hunter found out what he had done he became afraid, but in that moment it says that Krisha “comforted”  him. When that happened he ascended to heaven and saw the gods and deities.

So the fact is that even though he was killed, the circumstances in the Hindu writtings are completely different from the Christian tradition. — Jesus was betrayed, crucified,  placed in a tomb, then was resurrected. Krishna simply ascended to heaven when he was killed. So it has to be concluded that there is no credible evidence to believe that Jesus was copied from Krisha. Even what little similarities they have are really trivial and cannot be said to have influenced one or the other.

As a side issue, there is one particular claim made many other ”Jesus-Mythers,” though not by Zeitgeist that the term “Christ” (Jesus’ title as the Messiah) is similar to the name “Krishna” because of the somewhat similar pronunciation. However Christ, or Khristos, actually means “the annointed.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)

On the other hand, the meaning of Krishna’s name (click here) is completely different,

The term Krishna in Sanskrit means “black” according to standard dictionaries. It is related to similar words in other Indo-European languages meaning black. The name is often translated as ‘the dark one’ or as ‘the black one.’

Anyway, the attitude of Zeitgeist is now becoming clearer: “Academic correctness be damned! We have our agenda and we are going to advance it even if it means distorting the facts.” — I truly feel sorry for anyone that takes these films seriously without doing actual research.

As a side issue, there is one particular claim made many other ”Jesus-Mythers,” though not by Zeitgeist that the term “Christ” (Jesus’ title as the Messiah) is similar to the name “Krishna” because of the somewhat similar pronunciation. However Christ, or Khristos, actually means “the annointed.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)

If you want to read a more details on Krishna and Jesus then click here and here.

The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Part 2

The film Zeitgeist begins with list of pagan gods such Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. It goes through the list of details associated with Jesus Christ and then applies them to these pagan gods in order to create the impression that Christianity is only a copycat religion. However, viewers (whether believers or skeptics) should watch this film with the realization that there is an agenda behind it. — And I advise anyone reading this to do the same with what I am about to say as well.

So far, on the part of the film, claims of being academically are false, as seen in the case of the parallels between Horus and Jesus. — But it goes on to the next pagan deity, Attis, and makes similar claims about him saying,

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Before going into detail, I want to emphesize that December 25th has no theological significance to Christianity. It is not mentioned in the Bible as Jesus’ birth date. The date was adopted in 350 AD by Bishop Julius I, too late a date to have any relevance to Christian origins.

The story of Attis begins when Agdistis, a hermaphroditic demon with male and female sex organs, gets castrated by gods that feared him. They disposed of his organ, and an almond tree grew where it landed. — Pausanias, the second century Greek writer, says:

There grew up from it an almond-tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the river Sangarius [Nana, Attis' mother], they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once disappeared, but she was with child. A boy was born, and exposed, but was tended by a he-goat. As he grew up his beauty was more than human, and Agdistis fell in love with him. (Description of Greece 7, 17, 11)

After Attis’s birth, Nana’s father ordered the child exposed so that he would die, but fortunately he was saved by the goddess Cybele and was mothered by a she-goat. Attis grew to manhood and was so handsome in appearance that Agdistis and/or Cybele, the mother of the gods, fell in love with him.

When Attis was sent to marry the daughter of the king of Pessinos, Agdistis drove Attis insane to the point of castrating himself so that nobody else could have him. When Agdistis saw Attis’ dead body, he repented of driving him insane and made sure that his body didn’t decay. He was then reborn as an evergreen pine tree, as recounted by Strabo the historian. — In other versions, Cybele, who was jealous and refused to take Attis back, got sexually involved with women, and this drove Attis insane and he mutilated himself under a pine tree where he died. — Pausanias points out one tradition in which Attis is killed by a boar. (Description of Greece 7, 17, 10)

There is no indication that Nana, Attis’ mother, was a virgin when her son was born, though she could have been since there is no reason to believe she wasn’t. As for his death, he was either castrated, or his has gored by a wild bore. He was not crucified.

The claim that Attis was dead for three days and later resurrected seems to have its roots in the Magna Mater’s Spring Festival which lasted from the 15th of March until the 27th. — On the eighth say of the festival, a pine tree which symbolized Attis was cut down, and this was followed by three days of mourning. On the tenth day, he was burried, and then on the so-called Halaria, or the “Day of Joy” was on the eleventh day. This is cited as the resurrection day.

A.T. Fear, who contributed a chapter to the book entitled Attis and Related Cults and wrote about this very same festival, points out in the chapter entitled “Cybele and Christ“ does seem to confirm the claims that that Jesus may have been copied from Attis because of a similar claim that he was killed and resurrected after three days during a celebration that depicts his resurrection out of a tomb. (Page 39) — But there is a major problem. The ceremony that Dr. Fear describes is from a major festival of the metroac cult. But later he points out that this very cult had gone through changes which could have been “a deliberate attempt to rival Christianity” to ensure the cult’s survival in the market. (Page 44) — As a matter of fact, about the resurrection of Attis he says,

Attis too with his strong emphasis on resurrection seems to be a late-comer to the cult, the stress on the Halaria as celebrating the resurrection of Attis also appears to increase at the beginning of the Fourth century AD.: the same time as in the taurobolium towards the rite of personal redemption.

While these changes could simply be a mutation of religion over time, and it is important to remember that here we are discussing a period of centuries not merely years, they do seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity. (Attis and Related Cults, pages 41, 42)

Dr. Fear does question whether the process of changing the Attis cult was conscious, but he never even implies that Jesus was influenced by Attis. He says that the Attis cult either mutated or that it responded to Christianity. He also dates the celebration of Attis’ “resurrection” to the fourth century AD!

To be fair, there is one possible earlier date for the apparent resurrection of Attis, but it is not much better for those that want Jesus to have been copied from Attis. — According to this other reconstruction, the three days of mourning were introduced during Emperor Claudius’ reign which was from 41 to 54 AD. Also, the apparent resurrection day was was introduced during the reign of Antoninus Pius, between 130 to 161 AD. The obvious problem with supposing that this was an inspiration for Christianity was that these aspects of the festival are post-Christian. So either way, both possible scenarios have it as too late to have affected Christianity.

So, my conclusion here is that Zeitgeist’s claims about Attis are only marginally better that those made about Horus. It cannot be said definitively that Attis was born of a virgin because it is not specified whether or not his mother was. His death in both versions of his life differ from the crucifixion of Jesus, and the three day death and resurrection of Attis are from the post-Christian era, not from before as would be expected if Christianity were influence by the Attis cult. — Academic correctness on Peter Joseph’s part (the producer of Zeitgeist) seems to be secondary to his anti-Christian agenda.

References:
The History of Christmas from holidays.net
Description of Greece 7, 17, 11, Pausanias
CATULLUS. “ATTIS” (#63)
Attis — From AbsoluteAstronomy.com
Description of Greece 7, 17, 10. Pausanias
The Great Mother from Asia Minor to Rome. From Mythology.OurGardenPath.com
Attis and Related Cults, pages 39 to 42. — Attis and Christ, by A.T. Fear

The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist – Part 1

The film Zeitgeist begins with list of pagan gods such Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithra. It goes through the list of details associated with Jesus Christ and then applies them to these pagan gods in order to create the impression that Christianity is only a copycat religion. However, viewers (whether believers or skeptics) should watch this film with the realization that there is an agenda behind it. — And I advise anyone reading this to do the same with what I am about to say as well.

As the film itself says, we want to be academically correct. So now it is our duty to check the facts to see if the makers of Zeitgeist have lived up to that expectation. If the film is right, then that means we Christians have a lot of reevaluating to do. If it is wrong, however, then it is the Jesus-Mythers that should reevaluate what they are spreading all over their webstes.

So, please bear with me as I go over the facts of this matter:

The first God that the film deals with is Horus, the God the Son of Osiris and Isis. — As I point out in the introduction of this review, the film makes claims in an attempt to tie Horus to Jesus. — After going into some background about him, the narator of the film says,

Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.

These are incredible claims. But as I said, we have to be skeptical of any film that has a clear agenda. The truth is that even though it is claimed that Horus was the product of a virgin birth, there is no reference that I could find that supports what the film says. It is actually unlikely that a married couple of gods would have not procreated at any time before the birth of Horus.

In fact, the claim that Horus’ mother, Isis, was a virgin is easily disproven by very little research. — The Encyclopedia Mythica shows that his birth was definitely sexual. After his father Osiris had been murdered by Seth, his body was scatered into pieces leaving Isis to recover them to reassemble her husband’s body. She then “impregnated herself from the Osiris’ body and gave birth to Horus in the swamps of Khemnis in the Nile Delta.”

Also, there is no indication of Horus’ birth-date being on December 25th, there is no Biblical nor historical reason why this date should be relevant to Christianity because the Bible gives no such information of the birth of Jesus. — In reality, Horus was born on the second of the Epagomenal Days which actually corresponds from July 31st to August 24th.

As for Zeitgeist calling his mother Isis-Meri – an obvious word game the film makers try to pull to link her to Mary – there is no reference that I could find that wasn’t a “Jesus-Myth” website. No academic or encyclopedic sources I could find said any such thing. She is simply called Isis. However, that isn’t to say it doesn’t exist as an Egyptian term. The reference I found was that one of Ramses II’s sons bore the name “Meri-Astrot,” or “Beloved of Astrot.” — “Meri” means beloved. (History Of Syria: Including Lebanon And Palestine, page 136) — I suppose Osiris, being her husband, could have called her by that title, but there is no reference to him doing it. But even if he did, it is a title, not a name like Mary, so it would be irrelevant.

There is no reference to Horus being a “prodigal child teacher” at the age of twelve, or of being baptized at age thirty. — Zeitgeist claims that he was baptized by “Anup,” hovever this is a demonstrable error. “Anup” is simply an alternate spelling for the name of the god Anubis who, by the way, was an embelmer, not a baptizer.

As for having twelve disciples, again, I ran into a brick wall as I could find nothing to confirm this claim. — One researcher/Christian apologist I read said he was able to find a reference to Horus having sixteen followers, and another in which he had an undefined number, but twelve disciples escaped his investigative research.

The claim that he performed miracles, even if true, would be irrelevant because “miracle working” is a way too common expectation of deities. And as for having similar titles to Jesus such as “The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, or the Lamb of God” there is no evidence that he ever had them.

“Typhon” is simply the Greek name for Seth, the murderer of Horus’ father. Zeitgeist claims that he betrayed Horus, however Seth was Horus’ enemy from birth so by definition nobody was betrayed. It’s hard to be betrayed by someone who was never your friend to begin with. — The one reference that I could find that describes his death is seeminly unrelated to the Passion of Jesus. According to the Cippi of Horus, he was stung him to death by a scorpion. When Isis found him dead she is said to have become “distraught and frantic with grief, and was inconsolable.” – Thoth, who had helped her to revive her husband Osiris, heard her and came down to answer her. Isis was then supplied with incantations and then was able to revive her son. — No crucufixion, no three days in a tomb.

Zeitgeist also calls Horus the “Sun” god (or solar deity) in an attempt to tie him to Jesus who was the “son” of God. Overlooking the the fact that this is an irrelevant word game that only works in English, Jesus was never considered a solar deity. It doesn’t help matters for Zeitgeist and other “Jesus-Mythers” who make this claim that sun worship is a violation of Christian teaching. I’m fully aware that Zeitgeist tries to tie Jesus to “sun” worship via the zodiac, but I will cover that in a later post. — For the record, Ra was the sun god, though Horus was considered a sun god in falcon form.

To show that Jesus’ infancy is a plagiarizing, Zeitgeist goes on to cite a 3,500 year old Egyptian inscription found at Luxor that it claims tells the story of the annunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth and the adoration of Horus.

Luxor Inscription

The film then says,

The images begin with Thoth announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus. Then Neth the holy ghost impregnating the virgin. And then the virgin birth and the adoration. This is exactly the story of Jesus’ miracle conception.

This seems to implicate Christianity and Jesus as an imitation, however besides my refutation given above of untrue idea of Isis being a virgin when Horus was born, there is yet another problem with using the Luxor inscription to support the copycat hypothesis.

Richard Carrier, a historian and skeptic of Christianity in his comments about the inscription, says that this inscription has nothing to do with Christianity,

The Luxor inscription also does not depict impregnation by a spirit, but involves very real sex (indeed, the narrative borders on soft-core porn), and the woman involved is the mythical Queen of Egypt in an archetypal sense, not Isis per se.

In short, he ends up saying that the parallels are very week, and that what few parallels that do exist need not have been copied. He also points out that “Amun, not Thoth, announces the conception. . .” — Also the inscription, as far as I can tell isn’t even about Horus’ birth which only shows how poor a job the makers of Zeitgeist have done in researching for their film.

So my conclusion here is that there is no relevant parallel between Jesus and Horus, and the ones brought up are mostly fabricated. It’s too bad that a lot of people uncrittically accept such claims without doing any independent research of their own.

References:
Encyclopedia Mythica. Isis — by Micha F. Lindemans
The Ancient Egyptian Calendar
Five Days Out of Time by John Opsopaus
History Of Syria: Including Lebanon And Palestine, page 136. By Philip Khuri Hitti
Classic Encyclopedia – Anubis.
Good question. Was Jesus Christ just a CopyCat Savior Myth? By Glenn Miller.
Osiris and Isis
Cippi of Horus. From TourEgypt.net
Ra – The Sun-God
Horus, the God of Kings. by Jimmy Dunn
Luxor Inscription: Brunner’s Gottkoenigs & the Nativity of Jesus: A Brief Communication. By Richard Carrier

The Myth of Jesus: A Refutation of the Zeitgeist — Introduction

Even though it has been a while since I saw the half hour film on the Jesus Myth which is only a small portion of Zeitgeist – The Movie I have only now decided to write a review of it to investigate the claims that it advances. These claims about the copycat Jesus have been widely circulated on anti-Christian websites and have been used against Christians in religious debates.

Among the listed parallels between Jesus and the pagan gods,

• Born on December 25th
• Born of a virgin
• Star in the east
• Adorned by three kings
• Teacher at twelve years of age
• Baptized at age 30
• Had 12 disciples
• Performed miracles
• Called the “Lamb of God”/”The Light”/”King of Kings”/”Alpha and Omega”
• Crucified
• Dead for 3 days
• Resurrected
• “Sunday” worship

Of course, to any Christian these claims would indicate that the religion they hold so dear is nothing but a mere imitation of pagan religions that they themselves have rejected.

Also, the film also claims that many of the stories in the Old Testament have been plagiarized from pagan lore. ad that the the Bible is most accurately a book of astrology than anything else. So since the film itself says that we have to be academically correct, I will see if these claims have any truth in them. Also, if we find any parallels between Jesus and pagan gods then they have to be placed into perspective in order to verify their relevance.

To anyone that reads my future posts on this subject, I hope you find what you read informative. I will start to cover details that are advanced in Zeitgeist, the Movie

For your convenience, if you wish to see the film, I have it embeded below:

Daniel’s Four Empires — The Skeptics just don’t get it!

Recently in an earlier post I refuted the logical fallacy advanced by third-rate skeptic Farrell Till that the Biblical Book of Daniel supossed that the Medes and the Persians were two empires independent of eachother at the time of the conquest of Babylon.  Now in this post, I plan on showing that he misinterprets some of the most vital details of Daniel which show that Daniel did indeed predict the future with accuracy.

One of the areas in the book most misrepresented by skeptics and naturalists is the seventh chapter which shows apocalyptic imagery in the form of fou different beasts which represent four different empires that were to arise. They are a lion, a bear, a four-headed leopard, and a beast with ten horns.

Skeptics represent them as such:

1. The Lion — Babylon
2. The Bear — Media
3. Leopard — Persia
4. Beast with ten horns — Greece

Of course, most Christians that believe in the authenticity of Daniel do not accept most of this interpretation of the four beasts of Daniel’s vision.

First nobody, whether liberal or Conservative, dispute that the Lion is representative of the Neo-Babylonian empire so I will not go into that.

The subject is actually quite simple: All one has to do is disprove the skeptical position in at least one aspect and their entire assumption turns out to be wrong. — But first, it is important to mention that the basis of the assumptions is the hypothesis that the Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt in 165 BC because of the accurate imagery that the book gives about the time. Following this assumption as well as the idea that the future cannot be predicted skeptics came to the understanding that the ten horned beast represented the Greek empire. — My purpose is to show that this position is inconsistent with the facts of history.

Farrell Till, in his interpretation of the imagery, repeats the ten horned beast is the Greek empire by citing one Christian apologist that agrees with this position. Therefore, he believes the leopard it the Persian empire. This is consistent with the opinion of most secular scholars, but inconsistent with history. And here’s why:

After Daniel sees the fourth beast he asked for the interpretation:

He gave me [Daniel] this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.’ (Daniel 7: 23, 24 NIV)

So ten kings, it says will arise from this kingdom. But with the wording that one king will subdue three of them, there is the indication that (instead of ruling one after the other) the ten kings rule at the same time. — In other words, this kingdom gets divided into ten pieces or kingdoms.

It is true that the Greek Empire got split up soon after the Death of Alexander the Great:

In Asia the Macedonian commanders who served Alexander fought each other for power.  Perdiccas and Meleager were murdered, Antigonus rose to control most of Asia, but his growth of power brought the other Macedonian generals in coalition against him.  He was killed in battle and the Macedonian Empire split into four main kingdoms- the one of Seleucus (Asia), Ptolemy (Egypt), Lysimachus (Thrace), and Antipater’s son Cassander (Macedonia, including Greece).

(Text Link: Alexander of Macedon) 

So, Greece did divide, but not into ten kingdoms. — It divided into four. Now, does this mean that Daniel got wrong his historical description of the Greek empire? Or does this mean that the Skeptics are the ones that got it all wrong?

Considering other descriptions given in Daniel about the Greek empire, I doubt that Daniel would have gotten his history of Greece wrong. Daniel himself describes the Greek king (Obviously Alexander the Great) and what would happen to his kingdom,

Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has arisen, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others. (Daniel 11: 3, 4)

His empire would be broken into the four winds (i.e., into four pieces). So, Daniel knowing this, it is unlikely he would then make the huge blunder that Greece would be divided into ten.

The question now is do any of the other beasts in chapter seven better describe the Greek empire? — The answer seems to be an emphatic yes.

I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule. (Daniel 7: 6)

The leopard that comes before the last beast is not described in as great detail as the fourth beast, but the imagery is much more consistent with the historical knowledge of the Greek empire. The four heads and the four wings fit the four kingdoms that came out of Greece.

The interesting thing here is that even though Till rejects the clarity of the Leopard, not the ten horned beast, being the Greek empire, he still accepts the number “four” as symbolic for Greece in the vision of the ram and the goat. — The goat first had one horn before it fell off and four horns replaced it which represent four kingdoms (Daniel 7: 21, 22) — Even though Till talks about the consistency of symbols in his interpretation, his acceptance of the goat with four horns as Greece, but rejection of the four headed leopard as a symbol of the same empire is a huge inconsistency.

Whats more, Till usually brings up what he considers to be a historical error made by Daniel and says something on the lines of “It would be understandable for an ignorant late second century Jew to make such an error.” — I would argue that if Daniel indeed lived in the second century BC during the Greek empire, the last details he would ever get wrong would be of the current empire of his day. And yet, Till doesn’t seem to see that.

Since we know that the lion unquestioningly represents the Neo-Babylonian empire, what does this indicate for the second beast, the bear?

And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’ (Daniel 7: 5)

Most skeptics, and Till, believe that the bear is a symbol for the Median empire and that therefore the Leopard is Persia. However, I have just shown that the Leopard is more consistent with Greece, so this could mean just one thing: The bear, despite all of Farrell Till’s protests, has to represent a United Empire of Persia and Media (Medo-Persia).

The bear was shown to have one side raised above the other. — This is historically consistent with the Persia being held somewhat superior to Media, despite still being united allies.

So this being so, what about the fourth beast with ten horns? Most Conservative scholars believe that it represents the Roman Empire. — Of course, Till, not believing that Daniel could foretell the future, rejects this. But again, the ten horns representing ten kingdoms that come out does not reflect what Till insists on. The truth is that ten kingdoms did in fact come out of Rome:

• Franks (Clovis)
• Anglo-Saxons
• Visigoths
• Lombards
• Vandals
• Ostrogoths
• Heruli
• Suevi
• Alemani
• Burgundians

Daniel goes on to mention the fate of three of the horns (i.e., kingdoms),

While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. (Daniel 7: 8 )

It so happens that three of these same kingdoms were destroyed, or uprooted. They were the Vandals, the Ostrogoths, and the Heruli. (Click here for the info)

The implication here is that not only did Daniel give accurate history in his book, but that he also accurately predicted what would happen in with the Roman empire This means that even if the Book of Daniel were written in the second century BC, he still knew the future by about 600 years beyond his time. So even though skeptics would prefer not to pay attention to the facts, it appears that God did indeed have a hand in the writing of the Book of Daniel.

The Book of Daniel — The Persian and Median Empire

I have blogged my defence of the authenticity of the book of Daniel quite a while ago and have ceased because I came to the realization that the evidence never matters to many skeptics who have made up their minds to oppose the authenticity of any biblical passage no matter what. — My blog posts that defend the Book of Daniel were responces to Farrell Till’s complaints that Daniel was written in the second century BC and is therefore not an authentic work by an official in the Babylonian court in the sixth century BC.

In the face of any evidence or any credible conjecture that can show that Daniel is not necessarily inaccurate Till looks for any excuse to use to claim that it is all irrelevant, even if a competent scholar has proposed it. — He does this even though Till is not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination and uses in many cases ignorance to argue his cases.

For example, in the possible identification of Darius the Mede as Cyrus the Persian some scholars point to Daniel 6:28 that can be translated as “ . . . Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus,” or as “Darius, even. . .” which implies that the two may be one and the same. — The best argument that Till can come up with is that he couldn’t find any Bible translations to back up this “hypothesis.” Never mind that the ones proposing the translation are experts in the Biblical languages and Till, by his own admission, has never studied in any such field. The appeal to translations is a very unscholarly approach and is not to be taken seriously. (See “The Identity of Darius the Mede“).

He makes similar pathetic statements to defend his preconceived idea that Daniel screwed up by calling Belshazzar the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar. Even though Till realizes the fact that “son” can mean grandson, decedent and even successor whether related by blood or not, he insists that since Daniel doesn’t mention the rulers of Babylon that came between the two that therefore he didn’t know about their existence and therefore actually meant that the two kings were literally father and son. Never mind the possibility that Daniel didn’t mention them because the were probably irrelevant to what he was writing. (See “Belshazzar the “Son” of Nebuchadnezzar“)

It is because of such unreasonable and blind claims that he made to salvage his prejudice against Daniel that for the last year I have declined to write any rebuttal to his claims — But I decided that I would once again write another refutation of his criticisms.

In yet another attempt to show the Book of Daniel as historically inaccurate, in this text link here he attacks the perception that Daniel wrote of a united and single empire of “Medo-Persia.” He reasons, as most skeptics, that Daniel believed that the Medes and the Persians, at the time of the fall of Babylon in 539 BC were two independent empires.

He starts with the vision of two rams in Daniel 8 and says,

Bradford sees evidence of a “Medo-Persian” empire in Gabriel’s interpretation of this vision in which he said, “The ram that you saw having the two horns–they are the kings of Media and Persia” (v: 20). Literally, the text reads, “The ram that you saw the kings of Media and Persia” (Hendrickson’s). The verb to be [are] is not in the main clause, so this raises a question of interpretation. Did the writer mean to say, “The ram that you saw is the kings of Media and Persia,” or did he mean to say that the “horns are the kings of Media and Persia”? Obviously, Bradford wants it to mean the former, but there are better reasons to think that he meant to say that the horns were the kings of Media and Persia.

He tries to use English grammar to argue his case in a text originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic which is a very laughable tactic since English is not related to the two former languages. — The irony here is that in the case of Daniel 6:28 (in another one of his posts) he argues that even though some scholars justify the re-translation on the basis that Chronicles 5:26 being similarly structured that the two cannot be compared because one was in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic — Of course, the fact that the two Semitic languages are related and that related languages can , in many cases, be used to facilitate the learning of another related language. For example, knowing Spanish can facilitate the learning of Italian since the two are related and grammatically similar. In the same way, Hebrew and Aramaic are related. English, being Germanic and not Semetic, cannot be used to criticize Semetic grammar.

But what about Till’s evidence that Daniel meant to present Media and Persia as two seperate empires? — He continues,

First of all, we have to wonder why the writer didn’t say that the ram was the kings of Medo-Persia if he meant for the ram itself to symbolize a combined Medo-Persian empire. Why did he clearly distinguish between the Medes and the Persians as he consistently did throughout the book? In his interpretation of the handwriting on the wall, Daniel told Belshazzar that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and the Persians (5:28), so he had previously spoken of Media and Persia as separate kingdoms. If the writer knew that there was at that time a combined “Medo-Persian” empire, this would have been an excellent opportunity for him to say that the kingdom was being given to the Medo- Persians, but he didn’t say that. He said that the kingdom would be divided and given to the Medes and the Persians. In other words, Daniel’s interpretation of the writing was that part of Babylonia would be given to the Medes, and part of it would be given to the Persians, and so the interpretation indicated that the writer thought that Media and Persia were separate kingdoms that would divide the territory of Babylonia between them. Bradford has yet to show us in what sense Daniel meant that the Babylonian kingdom would be divided if he thought that the whole kingdom was going to be absorbed by a combined “Medo-Persian” empire.

Hold it! His argument is this? That Daniel didn’t use the term “Medo-Persia” to indicate that the Medes and Persians were united as one empire? I would think it would be obvious why Daniel didn’t use such a term: It is a modern linguistic peculiarity which would not have existed 2,400 years ago. It is like saying “Greco-Roman.” Obviously the Greeks and Romans never used that term, but is obviously isn’t a false description either. Historically, Cyrus united both the Medesand the Persians, so there is nothing wrong with the term “Medo-Persia.” But Cyrus himself would not have recognized the term either.

As for more of his alleged evidence, he says,

Bradford should consider the significance of the word dividein Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting. There is no way for Bradford to make sense of the word if he sticks to his claim that the book of Daniel was written by a 6th-century B. C. official who knew that the Babylonian empire had fallen in one swoop to a combined “Medo-Persian” kingdom, but usage of the word can easily be explained by the theory that Daniel was written well after the 6thcentury by an author who was familiar with the Jewish scriptures of the time but not so knowledgeable of Babylonian history.

Another “evidence that Farrell Till uses to show that Daniel thought that Daniel 5:28 says Babylon was “divided” and given to the Medes and Persians. — He thinks that this means half of the kingdom was given to Persia and that the other half was given to Medes. He ignores the fact that Daniel himself shows that the division was into 120 provinces and not in half like he assumes. (Daniel 6:1) — This idea of Babylon being “divided” is supported by  The Nabonidus Chronicle which says that Gobryas (Gubaru) installed sub-governors in Babylon. — This would have meant that Babylon was divided, but not in half.

Linguists have pointed out that the term for “Divided” which is “Peres” also means “Persia.” This means, of course that the Persians were the conquerors and the ones that created the subgovernments in Babylon. However, Till, as I mention in “The Identity of Darius the Mede” rejects that this could be an allusion to the Persians because of his insistence of reading the Hebrew-Aramaic with the eye of a modern English literalist.

But, is there evidence that Daniel saw Persia and Media as two components of one single empire? — The answer is “yes.”

Daniel 6: 8, 12 indicates that King Darius the Mede was subject, not only to the laws of the Medes, but also to the laws of the Persians. It would be ridiculous to believe that the King of an independent Median empire would be obligated to follow the laws of a separate empire. The only explanation is that the Medes and Persians were united in a single empire, which is historically accurate.

Till goes on to say that Daniel said the Medes (not the Persians) conquered Babylo because the ancient prophets predicted it so.  Till points out Isaiah 13: 17 predicted that the Medes would conquer Babylon and then gleefully points out that that didn’t happen. However, he overlooks Isaiah 21: 2 which says that both  Elam and the Medes would capture Babylon. — As is pointed out by one scholar,

These passages single out Media as the nation which God would stir up against Babylon, but as  noted [ . . . ] we are told that Elam also would be involved in its actual overthrow. Eastern Elam was occupied by the Persian race at this time and was Cyrus’ place of origin.

(Text link: The Medes and Persians)

Keeping this in mind, the supposed historical error actually does not exist and skeptics mention it without considering all the evidence. — Also as mentioned in another post, I believe that Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede are the same individual based on the alternate translation of Daniel 6:28 and other side historical evidence that Cyrus was half-Median with Astayges as his grandfather.

So in conclusion, considering the textual evidence in Daniel that indicates that Darius the Mede was subject to the laws of the Persians, there is enough evidence that the vast majority of skeptics are incorrect in assuming that Daniel believed the Medes and Persians were independent of each other because it is unreasonable for independent nations to be obligated to obey the laws of other empires. Also, Till’s argument that Daniel should have used the term “Medo-Persia” if he wanted to indicate they were a united empire is moot. No such modern day linguistic peculiarity would have existed in that time no matter how well accurately it describes the situation. Daniel cannot be blamed for not using modern-day English terminology in his book. — Also, Farrell Till’s complaint that Daniel erred by denying the Persians were the conquerors of Babylon is also know to be basless when the relevant evidence is examined.