DescentBB

Bet51987 wrote:Drakona claims evolution is implausable, Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him but allows him to witness His miracles, and you stand on the pulpit applauding them as if I'm the one thats silly?
Bettina

Nice to see that Argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well (see here) are alive and kicking here on the dbb.

Have a nice day.

Dis

Bettina, you LIKE science. I admire that. Part of Science is being willing to work things through logically. To figure things out in as objective a manner as possible. In the scientific arena, this means: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"

Of course, NO ONE is without preconceived opinions, but when analyzing facts in a scientific manner, we attempt to set those opinions aside as much as possible and to look at just the facts. That's part of what science is about.

You are willing to embrace this video because you agree with it's general view, despite the fact that you concede much (if not almost all) of its theories are full of great big holes. We aren't talking "Difference of opinion" here, we are talking about simple factual errors. If they are wrong on so many points, why approve of them?

I believe that your love of science will lead you to reject poorly researched and defended topics and to support better ones. There are MUCH more reputable atheist sources.

Zuruck wrote:good to see that the ridiculously long post did not sway you...quite laughable isn't it?

How can you say his arguments were laughable if you haven't read them?

It seems that in forum debates we often try to trap people into a catch-22 situation. If they give an abbreviated "sound bite" post, we tell them that they didn't answer the points and can therefore be ignored. If they give a long detailed explanation, we tell them that their post was too long to read, and can therefore be ignored. If we are going to dismiss our opponents no matter what, its not a debate, just a series of diatribes.

There is certainly virtue in brevity, but complicated subjects can NOT always be summed up into short sound bites. You have to have more than a 30 second attention span to keep up in a serious debate.

I would like to point out that at first, Lothar had the exact same response to this vid that I and many others did. Looked like tommyrot and wasn't worth wasting any time on. BUT, several people practically insisted that he give us a reasoned review of it, and so, UNLIKE most of the rest of us, he did. He gave up precious time and effort to not only watch this drivel, but to produce a well reasoned, and well written response to it.

Now I am certainly NOT saying that anyone is obligated to read that response. If it bores you, skip it and move on to the next topic. BUT, if you are going to argue that his post was laughable, then yes, I think you should read and respond to the factual points that Lothar raised. At least, if you want the rest of us to take you seriously.

I certainly disagree with Lothar sometimes, but I NEVER dismiss him.

Haha...that is hilarious.

He's right Bee...getting a compliment from me is actually an insult. I suppose it would have to be that way. Not everyone gets to personally witness \"miracles\" from their deity. Only Lothar gets to do that...

Sorry Lothar, I see through all your crap and everything else that you bible beaters put on here. It's repetitive and quite silly indeed. I applaud Bee, at such a young age, to actually stand by her convictions and not be swayed by something as simple as a long novel with big words.

As for being taken seriously around here, I think I'll sleep just fine one way or another so I'm not really that worried. It could be worse, I could be in a dead end job with no clue what's going in life...sort of like you Lothar.

Have fun.

Zuruck, how exactly do you \"see through\" things you don't even read? Did you watch the video and magically intuit that my response to it would be a \"novel\" full of \"big words\" (despite the fact that the biggest words I used appeared in the video I was asked to respond to)? How did you come to the conclusion what I said was \"repetitive\" when I've never addressed the video's arguments before?

Forget all of that. The only question I want an answer to is, do you think the video presented good and reasoned arguments?

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Drakona claims evolution is implausable, Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him but allows him to witness His miracles, and you stand on the pulpit applauding them as if I'm the one thats silly?
Bettina

Nice to see that Argumentum ad hominem and Poisoning the well (see here) are alive and kicking here on the dbb.

Have a nice day.

Dis

Just to clarify. I didn't mean it to be that way but I just got sick and tired of being called lame and being treated as a silly little girl because I saw something in the video that they didn't. Theists are highly protective of each other so I understand your comment.

Have a nicer day.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I just got sick and tired of being called lame

I didn't call you lame. I called your excuses and your arguments lame and silly, because they are. And I said you look silly when you defend this video, because the video is such garbage propaganda based on lies, falsehoods, and innuendo, there's no way to look sensible when defending it.

If you're sick and tired of me saying those things about your arguments, post better arguments. Answer the challenges put before you instead of making excuses. Ford Prefect has set a great example here; I suggest you learn from him.

Bet51987 wrote:Theists are highly protective of each other so I understand your comment.

Have a nicer day.

Bee

Bettina, you apparently still don't get it; and feel the need to make a back-handed comment implying that I was rushing to Lothar's defense, when
(a) I hardly think that Lothar needs me to defend his arguments, and
(b) what I was doing was simply pointing out the logical fallacies of your post. I'm having a great day, thanks. I hope you are too. Now bring us some real arguments that we can discuss.

dissent wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Theists are highly protective of each other so I understand your comment.

Have a nicer day.

Bee

Bettina, you apparently still don't get it; and feel the need to make a back-handed comment implying that I was rushing to Lothar's defense, when
(a) I hardly think that Lothar needs me to defend his arguments, and
(b) what I was doing was simply pointing out the logical fallacies of your post. I'm having a great day, thanks. I hope you are too. Now bring us some real arguments that we can discuss.

If it isn't too much trouble, maybe you can point out the fallacies of my posts....

Bee

I'm sure that by even daring to touch this thread, I will incite riot, but I will do so regardless. Perhaps a fresh perspective will instead diffuse the chain reaction that this subject always fosters.

I have often, through the years, revisited the subject of my beliefs (or lack thereof) and never truly come to terms with it. A great many people would argue that billions of people following some variant of Christianity can't all be wrong. Others would explain it away (and all other religions) as something that the moral majority need to believe so that they can come to terms with the unknown. Others still would take the stance of believing in some flavor of grand conspiracy theory intended to better humanity's moral fiber and allow them to live together for a time in some measure of peace and harmony. Or perhaps they subscribe to the idea that religion is just a more well-rounded and evolved system of control derived from the ones that shamans and druids wielded upon the social structures of their respective ages?

Personally, I feel it really all boils down to two things. Truth and Faith. Not simply science versus belief, or incontrovertible logic versus mountains of scripture and historical reference. Simple Truth and Faith. Keep in mind as well that these two aspects of our own spiritual selves are not even necessarily in opposition.

The main reason for this is that everyone, in their own way, wants the Truth. Whether it is that God exists, that a certain religion is the 'right' one, or that your own personal journey of self-discovery you've tried to share with others is too profound to ignore, each is an extension towards attaining Truth. Those that have Faith would possibly argue that they have only the measure of Truth they require, and to have all of the Truth flies in the face of religion because if you had all the answers, Faith would not be necessary. But your personal stance on what you believe (or don't believe) is a representation of how strongly you require Truth to believe, and how much Faith you already have (or are capable of having).

A rapidly-growing portion of the populous over the past 200 years have clung to logic as their control over their environment, and they wield it like a sword. Intellectual prowess has become the measure of success that insures wealth, glory, and power, whereas in ages past, might made right. It stands to reason (no pun intended) that anyone with a great degree of cognitive ability is predisposed to struggle with dogma and scripture from thousands of years ago that is contradictory to itself in some areas, difficult to discern a simple and true meaning from with a few exceptions, and leads so many people to do or say things that they might consider illogical. The rare exception to this is the scholars of theology. They are among the few that have managed to come to terms with this duality and embrace it. They are the strongest marriage of Truth and Faith that exists, and I commend them for their dedication to the pursuit of the one while maintaining the other.

Is all of this pointless? Is religion created by nothing more than human need for control, self-control, or solace against the overwhelming unknown? Nobody but you can decide that for yourself if you are exclusively focused on the Truth and are incapable of Faith (as I am). Regardless of whether they are right (as I hope they are) or wrong, I envy those that have enough Faith to persevere, even flourish, for it affords them a strength and conviction that I will never have.

Conflict over religion? Arguing over who is right or wrong? It matters not. What matters is that it betters their lives and makes the world a better place for us and our children more often than not. There are obviously exceptions, but freedom of religion is all about your personal journey and the freedom to take it. I think everyone can agree on some begrudging level, no matter their stance on the subject, that the world as we know it today would be very different indeed if Christianity had not blossomed thousands of years ago. I can't help thinking it would be a great deal more barbaric. Perhaps even concepts like democracy would never have manifested or been given life. How much personal freedom would you have, today? Would we have already destroyed ourselves?

Sadly, there is no safe ground for discussing a topic like this one, and I doubt there ever will be. But at the end of the day, what's most important is to try to remember that the guy sitting in front of that other computer isn't all that different from you. He wants some measure of Truth, just like you do.

The sad reality? There is one common thread to all beliefs - the Truth is only attainable by the dead. No matter who is right, you won't know it until your physical journey has reached its end. Your unwavering Faith, your dedication to your belief system, your intellectual misgivings if they exist - all are put to the test of Truth in the end. You may not suddenly know all the secrets of the universe, of course (or you might.. who knows?). You might cease to exist and the fact that you are now dead means that the Truth is revealed but you aren't even cognitively around to be aware of it. But that is the pivotal moment that almost everyone is scared of on some level. So until your journey is over, be respectful of your fellow travelers. They're just trying to understand it all and make it through, just like you.

Heck, what if nobody's right? Or what if God does exist, that's the only thing we did get right, and all He cares about is how you treat others while being true to yourself? Or what if all He cares about is that you wanted and tried to understand? Or seek Him in some way, regardless of the belief system you chose?

Let's side-step and use a different conundrum to illustrate how frustratingly elusive, intangible, and incomprehensible the subject of religion can be:

Have you ever stopped to think about the Big Bang? What if that really is how the universe came into being? Let's embrace that as a scientific fact and ignore all concepts and permutations of religion. How, exactly, do you explain something springing into existence from nothing? Void. BOOM! Here, have a universe! Something from nothing? How is that even remotely possible? That can't be right, so there must be another plausible explanation. Hmm.. the universe has always been here? But it can't have ALWAYS been here, could it? So something or someone created it! ....but they created it from ...nothing? And who created whoever or whatever created it? Was there a void at some point, and if there was, how did all of this cycle begin? Or how could it have always been in place? How will we ever understand or know? Does science hold the key to the Truth? Does religion? If God created the universe, then where did He come from? How did He spring into being? Who or what created Him?

Probably a humorous cliche', but honestly, you can't handle the Truth. And none of us has it to give to you.

Bet51987 wrote:If it isn't too much trouble, maybe you can point out the fallacies of my posts....

Bee

Sure. You said:

Bettina wrote:Drakona claims evolution is implausible.

Lothar claims that God not only speaks to him …etc.

From the link I posted:

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.


Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

Any way you slice it, the information you stated is completely irrelevant to any of Lothar's arguments regarding the video.

dissent wrote:Any way you slice it, the information you stated is completely irrelevant to any of Lothar's arguments regarding the video.

Your right. Even though what I said was true and for the reason I gave, it was irrelevant to Lothars argument regarding the video.

Its too bad that the theists here were so busy straightening each tree that they totally missed the forest.

Bettina

Nice post Sllik. No thumbs up emoticon available so imagine it posted here.

Sllik, good writeup. I might have to disagree with you on one point though, depending on what you mean by faith. There's a weak conception, and there's a strong conception. The weak conception says that faith is the virtue of assenting to something that you should already assent to--a faithful person is somebody who believes in things that he has good reason to believe. To contrast that, the strong conception of faith says that faith can act in lieu of evidence, as evidence. A lot of the theists on this board actually embrace something closer to the weaker conception, and for good reason. Putting the strong conception under close inspection, believing in something even though there's little or no evidence is really a vice, not a virtue. It's really absurd, and putting a label like \"faith\" on it and selling it as a virtue is, what shall we call it, a white-washed tomb? However, embracing the weak conception can be a challenging position for theists in another respect. They can no longer pull out the f word to magically justify their religious beliefs; they lose that ace in the hole. They now have to justify them on the same grounds that anything else is justified in this world. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, so I reject the strong conception of faith, as it's a vice, not a virtue.

Well said, J.

Bettina, you give the analogy of straightening each tree and missing the forest. But I see it more like... the movie tried to present a forest. I walked into the forest and found all the trees were cardboard cutouts, so I knocked them over. It's not like I broke off a few leaves from otherwise sturdy trees; it's not as though I nitpicked tangential points while ignoring the substantial ones. I looked at the main arguments the movie presented, analyzed the evidence put forth for each of them, and every single one of them fell apart with only a minimum of pushing. As far as I can tell, there are no trees left. So when you keep referencing "the forest", I want you to show me the trees; don't just tell me there is a forest and complain that I'm missing it. Tell me the details of "the mathematical works [that] were pushed aside by the bible". Tell me what points you think the video made, when it made them, and why you think those points were great.

Thus far, I feel like you're telling me I'm missing "the forest" but you can't show me any actual trees within it. You've presented a string of logical fallacies (as dissent pointed out) and made accusations to the effect that Theists can't be reasoned with... but you simply haven't presented anything of substance that's worth reasoning with. Ford Prefect has, and you can see the back-and-forth between us. I'd appreciate if you'd show the same level of respect to those you're debating with -- respect me enough to make real arguments I can actually respond to, instead of just taking cheap shots and telling me I'm missing the point.

Sllik wrote:Those that have Faith would possibly argue that they have only the measure of Truth they require, and to have all of the Truth flies in the face of religion because if you had all the answers, Faith would not be necessary.

You may want to check out this thread on faith.

In short, there are two definitions of faith.
- "blind faith", or what Jeff250* calls the "strong" conception. This is believing just because, for no other reason. This is believing in something you have no evidence for. This is the opposite of reason.

- "faith as trust", or what Jeff250* calls the "weak" conception. This is believing because someone or something has proven themself. It's acting according to what you know is true, even when your emotions make you want to act some other way. This is the opposite of forgetfulness.

The first sort of "faith" is a bad thing, and it's that sort of faith that "having the answers" conflicts with. The second sort of "faith" is a good thing, and it remains necessary. Even when you have all the answers, acting on them is sometimes difficult. Sometimes you're scared and don't want to act even though you know you should, and you need to be faithful by responding as you know you should in spite of your emotions.



* I dislike the strong/weak categorization because it clashes with the common usage of "weak" and "strong" faith. The dichotomy is good, but the terminology is misleading. Perhaps "blind" vs "unwavering" would be better?

Lothar wrote:Argument 3: On Astrological Ages

One of the major claims of the movie is about the astrological ages. The age of Taurus the Bull lasts from 4300-2150 BC; the age of Ares the Ram from 2150 BC - 1 AD, the age of Pisces the Fish from 1 AD to 2150 AD, and the age of Aquarius the water-bearer will begin in 2150 AD (well, at least according to some interpretations of the ages; other interpretations shift those dates by about 500 years, but the movie doesn't bother to let you know this.) The movie claims that Moses' smashing the golden calf/bull in Exodus 32 is because Moses represents the start of the age of Ares the Ram (as evidenced by the modern Jews blowing a Ram's horn), and he's upset about the people are returning to the previous age. It further claims that Jesus ushers in the Age of Pisces (often symbolized by TWO fish), which is why he calls two fishermen to be His disciples, and feeds people with bread and fish. It also claims that Jesus is telling people about a "future passover" in Luke 22:10, involving a man carrying water, which is a reference to Aquarius.

As mentioned on the Astrological Ages wikipedia page above, the precession of the equinoxes was not discovered until about 127 BC by Hipparchus. Moses was around about 1400 years before that -- so how exactly did he know it was the age of the ram, if the concept hadn't even been invented yet? Also note that Moses is born about 700 years into the age of Ares, not any time near its start. Furthermore, Moses never gave any indication that ram worship was to replace bull worship. In the "golden calf" story, the issue is not that the people made a BULL, but that they made an IDOL -- he doesn't get angry and order them to build a ram; he gets angry and destroys the calf and tells them to turn back to a God who is never given any animal representation.

Greetings. This is my first post on this forum and I wish to address the above post. I was referred here by another forum thread and found these comments interesting/odd.

The above information provided by "Lothar" is not accurate. Hipparchus did discover THE MATH involved in precession, but not the changing of the ages. It was known LONG before the story of Moses appeared. The link Lothar provided himself discusses the monuments built to welcome the age of Leo over 10 000 years BC.

Quote…we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is “frozen” on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical “Age of Leo” (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was “housed” by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. - end quote.

Also, Lothar points out that the story of Moses happens 700 years out of the age of Aries. The link also mentions a 720 year period when the age begins to make visible influence. Wouldn't that put the time of the story in that period?

I did not go further with this post as I must assume it is more of the same, as Lothar did with the movie in question. I did check a bit about the "end times" reference and there is so much contradiction and debate on this issue it is not worth it. Early biblical scholars themselves originally deduced it was to be within their lifetime and dismissed it as they grew old and nothing happened.

JohnG, where did you originally find this referenced? I'm curious to see what was said about it.

Thank you for the correction on the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes. It's not really within my area of expertise, but I'll acknowledge that it could have been known long, long before the time of Moses. (It happens to be an insignificant detail, but still, I like to learn.)

JohnG wrote:Lothar points out that the story of Moses happens 700 years out of the age of Aries. The link also mentions a 720 year period when the age begins to make visible influence. Wouldn't that put the time of the story in that period?

The article says that "some astrologers consider the last ca. 10 degrees of a given age (ca. 720 years) as the time period during which the new age starts to make visible its influences". This misses Moses by about 700 years in the other direction, putting us in the time of Hezekiah.

Also, if we use the "last 720 years" criteria that "some astrologers" suggest, Jesus, who definitely had visible influence, no longer fits.

The movie tries to show the Bible matches a particular astrological pattern. But it only ends up matching a few scattered details, and even then, only by applying different criteria to different details. The vast majority of details don't match -- there's no systematic replacement of bulls with rams, Moses doesn't complain the idol should have been a ram, both animals play large parts in the Law given through Moses in the following pages.

You know how, when you hear the answer to a riddle, you "get it"? You hear the answer and you understand how each detail fits with it. A good pattern match is like that. Once you're aware of the pattern, details just fall into place. Once you know the answer, there's depth in the details that wasn't there before. The argument the movie presents doesn't have any of that depth, power, or robustness. It is, to put it mildly, garbage.

I must assume it is more of the same, as Lothar did with the movie in question.

I watched the movie until it changed to a topic that no longer interested me. Despite its lack of credibility, I took the time to give a complete and coherent response to its entire "Part I", showing how its errors were systematic (as stated in the paragraph above.) I took the time to address the core points the movie made, not merely tangential details. I'd appreciate if you did the same with my post.

Of the two points you addressed, I was in error on one (which was insignificant to my argument as a whole.) You were in error on the other. Let's not use those errors as an excuse to ignore each other. If you have more to say, I'll be glad to listen. I only ask that you show enough respect to listen in response.

MONSTER POST WARNING

Thanks for the reply Lothar. In regards to the movie (I got around to watching it) I found it interesting although I agree that it is presented in a propoganda-esque style.

I am not an authority on religion by any means and also a non-believer, however, I have always been fascinated by the sociological effects it has on society and pass no judgment on those who believe, unless it is being used to hurt or take from somebody. The historical relevance alone is fascinating.

Anyway, to answer your query about the link referenced, it was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age
in the section regarding the great month of Leo. I don’t think it’s an insignificant detail as a good portion of the information provided in the movie is based on the relationship between the passing of the ages and the references used in the bible stories.

Upon seeing the context of the movie, my own logic tells me any inaccuracies to the actual passing of the ages is more a representation on the liberties taken with the adaptations used in the bible stories. They are ancient stories and the more I research the stories the more I stumble upon similar plot lines dating back 1000’s of years BC.

Here is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

The Sargon/Moses stories were touched on in the zeitgeist movie as well. The stories from the temple of Luxor, regarding the birth of Ra, are too close to the story of the birth of Jesus to be ignored.

Some interesting info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra

In regards to Jesus and his symbolism using fish, it would seem upon further research that there is a significant amount of references to them. At least four of Jesus disciples were fisherman (James, brothers Peter and Andrew and John). In the text that you linked - “I will make you fishers of men” he says. In the gospels of John, 21:11 the disciples fished all night to no avail, until Jesus told them to cast to the other side of the boat and they caught 153 fish. The number 153 is the vertical ratio of the vesica piscis.

Here is what that means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis

In Matthew 13:47-50, Jesus relates God deciding who goes to heaven or hell to fisherman sorting their catch.

These points are aside from the points made in the movie. Considering that fish are more tied in with Jesus than any other character in the bible, I would say there is symbolic reference, considering the text is very heavy on symbolism.

Also, where you claim the movie “explicitly lied” about the far future passover at the end of the age of pisces – the movie actually states that the quote is actually from Matthew 28:20, not Luke 22:10. I checked – it’s there.

In regards to your question, “If Moses and Jesus signified changing astrological ages, why would they be copied from other figures like Sargon, Minos, or Horus”?. The idea is that the characters are derived from these predecessors:

• Horus is the Father seen in the son...Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life.
• Horus claims to be the light of the world represented by the symbolic eye, the sign of salvation. Jesus stated that he is the light of the world.
• Horus said that he was the way, the truth, the life. Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life.
• Horus was the plant, the shoot. Jesus says \"I am the true vine.\"
• Horus says It is I who traverse the heavens, I go round the Elysian Fields. Eternity has been assigned to me without end, Lo! I am heir to endless time and my attribute is eternity. Jesus says I am come down from heaven, for this is the will of the Father, that everyone who beholdeth the Son and believeth in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
• Horus...I open the Tuat ( http://altreligion.about.com/library/gl ... eftuat.htm ) that I may drive away the darkness. Jesus says I am come a light unto the world.
• Horus says I am equipped with thy words O Ra [Father in Heaven] and repeat them to those who are deprived of breath. These were the words of the Father in heaven. Jesus says The Father which sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak therefore even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.\"
• Horus baptized with water by Anup. Jesus baptized with water by John the Baptist.
• Horus-Aan, the name of the divine scribe. Jesus-John the divine scribe.
• Horus born in Annu, the place of bread. Jesus Born in Bethlehem, the house of bread.
• Horus The good shepherd with the crook on his shoulders. Jesus The good shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders.
• Horus Seven on board the boat with him. Jesus Seven fishermen on board the boat with Jesus.
• Horus Depicted as the Lamb Jesus depicted as the lamb.
• Horus as the Lion. Jesus as the lion.
• Horus identified with the Tat or cross. Jesus identified with the cross.
• Horus of 12 years. Jesus of 12 years.
• Horus A man of 30 years. Jesus a man of 30 years at his baptism.
• Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.
• Horus the manifesting son of God. Jesus the manifesting son of God.
• Horus The trinity...Atum the Father, Horus the son, Ra the Holy Spirit. Jesus...God the Father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit.
• Horus The first Horus as a child of the virgin, the second as son of Ra. Jesus as a child of the virgin, Christ as the son of the Father in heaven.
• Horus...Horus the sender and Set the destroyer in the harvest field. Jesus...Jesus the sender or the good seed, Satan the sender of tares.
• Horus carried off by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep. Jesus carried by Satan to an exceedingly high mountain.
• Horus and Set contending on the Mount. Jesus and Satan contending on the Mount.
• Horus...The star was the announcer of the child Horus. Jesus...The Star in the East indicated the birth-place of Jesus.
• Horus...the avenger. Jesus who brings the sword.
• Horus...as Iu-em-hetep comes with peace...Jesus...the bringer of peace.
• Horus...the afflicted one. Jesus...the afflicted one.
• Horus...as the type of life eternal.
• Jesus...as the type of life eternal.
• Horus as Iu-em-hetep the child teacher in the temple. Jesus as the child teacher in the temple.
• Horus The mummy bandage was woven without seam. Jesus The vesture of the Christ was without seam.
• Horus As Har-Khutti has twelve followers... Jesus has twelve disciples.
• Horus The revelation written down by divine scribe Aan (Tehuti). Jesus the Revelation written down by John the Divine.
• Horus_Aani bears witness to the word of Ra. Jesus...John bears witness to the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ.
• Horus The secret mysteries revealed by That-Aan. Jesus The secret mysteries made known by John.
• Horus The morning star. Jesus The morning star.
• Horus Who gives the morning star to his followers. Jesus who gives the morning star to his followers.
• Horus The name of Ra on the head of the deceased. Jesus The name of the father written on the forehead.
• Horus The paradise of the Pole star...Am-Khemen. Jesus The Holy City lighted by one luminary that is neither the sun nor the moon.
• Horus Har-Seshu or servants of Horus. Jesus The servants of Jesus Christ.

…and so forth. As far as the references to the passing of the ages, it has already been noted that this has been a major part of religious culture for sometime, so tying it in with the bible stories is a natural thing for an all encompassing scripture. It should be noted that the Mithraic religion which was born at the same time as Christianity, (noted for copying Christianity) had pronounced astrological elements.

Quote from wiki “The centerpiece of analysis is the tauroctony - an image of Mithras sacrificing a bull. The tauroctony is a star chart. Mithras is the constellation Perseus, and the bull is Taurus, a constellation of the zodiac. In an earlier astrological age, the vernal equinox had taken place when the Sun was in Taurus. The tauroctony, by this reasoning, commemorated Mithras-Perseus ending the \"Age of Taurus\" about 2000 BC.” - again, this religion was said to be a direct copy of Christianity at the time of their conceptions.

Astrology was “pop culture” during at the time.

I’m tired, off to bed and I hope to continue this discussion, Lothar!

Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.

roflmao. ooohkay.

Duper wrote:

Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.

roflmao. ooohkay.

LOTS of info regarding that very point from the egyptian book of the dead. Take a minute yourself and research it.

JohnG, now that you've watched the movie, please take the time to carefully read my response to it. Several of your comments indicate that your comprehension level was less than adequate.

JohnG wrote:to answer your query about the link referenced

You misunderstood. My query was regarding what forum you found the link to my post -- how did you know to come here to find this discussion? I know where your info on astrological ages came from.

a good portion of the information provided in the movie is based on the relationship between the passing of the ages and the references used in the bible stories.

I agree. The specific detail you presented (the discovery of the ages) is insignificant, though. It's incidental to my overall argument regarding astrological ages -- that, simply put, they are a bad pattern match. You have to stretch to find symbolism to fit the pattern, and only end up with a few "hits" over the course of a book that's over a thousand pages long. And those "hits" are regularly contradicted simply by reading the rest of the story they're in. That's not the way a good pattern looks.

You bring up Sargon of Akkad. As I mentioned before, his story does have some similarities with Moses... but not in the oldest texts. The particular text that describes Sargon as a Moses-like figure is dated from the 7th century BC (as it says in the wikipedia link.) Coincidentally, Assyria was involved in war with Israel and Judah during that timeframe. Was Moses copied from Sargon, or was Sargon copied from Moses? At best, this is an unknown -- it's not viable evidence.

In regards to Jesus and his symbolism using fish, it would seem upon further research that there is a significant amount of references to them.

Which is not surprising for a man who grew up in Nazareth 2000 years ago and traveled across the country. When he's near a large body of water, he occasionally references fish -- and we're supposed to take some grand symbolism out of this?

Jesus speaks of God deciding who goes to heaven using a good/bad fish metaphor in Matthew 13:47-50, a sheep/goats metaphor in Matthew 25:31-33, a crops/weeds metaphor in Matthew 13:24-30, and so on. Jesus spoke about fish, livestock, crops, pearls, taxes, yeast, architecture, wine, vineyards, fathers and sons, employees, banquets, money, virgins... I could keep going.

You claim that fish are "more tied in with Jesus than any other character in the Bible", but I'd say you missed the obvious: fish are more heavily tied in with the fishermen Jesus chose as His disciples. And while there are a lot of references to fish associated with Jesus, there are substantially more references to sheep/lamb(s) associated with Jesus. Similarly, there are some references to sheep/rams associated with Moses, but there are more references to bulls. Overall, it's simply a bad pattern. If Jesus is a Pisces reference, the fish symbols should be overwhelmingly present, and if Moses is an Ares reference, the ram symbols should be overwhelmingly present. In both cases, the references are occasionally present but overall less significant than other symbols. Even if I take the "153" as a Pythagorean reference strengthening that particular "fish" story, the pattern is overall incredibly weak.

where you claim the movie “explicitly lied” about the far future passover at the end of the age of pisces – the movie actually states that the quote is actually from Matthew 28:20, not Luke 22:10.

The movie "explicitly lied" about the Luke 22:10 passage, which references a water carrier; I wasn't referring to the "end of the age" passage in Matthew 28:20, which says nothing about a water carrier. The movie says that the Luke 22:10 water carrier (Aquarius) will show the disciples where the "next passover will be after he [Jesus] is gone", in 2150 AD. But if you just keep reading Luke 22, you find that the water carrier shows the disciples where the passover would be held right then. The movie says it's a "far future" passover, but it's actually a "that evening" passover.

In regards to your question, “If Moses and Jesus signified changing astrological ages, why would they be copied from other figures like Sargon, Minos, or Horus”?

[snip: long, unsourced list]

this has been a major part of religious culture for sometime, so tying it in with the bible stories is a natural thing for an all encompassing scripture.

You have a strange idea about what the word "why" means. Nothing you said gives reason for why, if someone wanted to create a religion around the passing of two ages, they would specifically crib other mythological figures who did not relate to the passing of ages. This all seems like the unnecessary conflation of two unrelated theories: that Jesus/Moses were copied from other figures, and that Jesus/Moses were symbols of astrological concepts. Both arguments are bogus on their own merits, but it's extra silly to combine them.

As for that huge list of Jesus/Horus similarities, I've seen it online several places. Unsourced. Always. There's this huge list of things that are supposedly in both Horus' and Jesus' stories... but (as I said before) I can't find the Horus parts in the Horus wikipedia entry or anywhere else, aside from as a part of the same repeated list. Nobody seems to be able to tell me what actual Egyptian document, carving, or inscription tells these stories of Horus. There are no actual Egyptologists, actual museums, or actual artifacts that support the story. My own research tells me roughly the same thing this guy determined: Gerald Massey originally made the series of claims a hundred years ago, they were retold in "The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S, a bunch of people have posted the claims on the internet, but nobody seems to know of any actual source material that substantiates the claims.

Aside from the Luxor temple inscription (which this atheist says is NOT what Zeitgeist claims), the only reference I've heard is "it's in the book of the dead", but nobody seems to know which of the 192 chapters of the book of the dead the particular story is in. That's simply not acceptable evidence. If I'm going to tell you about John the Baptist, I can give you book-chapter-verse for where in the Bible he's referenced, and I can give you resources where you could track down the original language manuscripts. But when it comes to Horus being baptized by Anup, nobody has been able to point me to a translation of the actual Egyptian story.

JohnG wrote:

Duper wrote:

Horus the KRST. Jesus the Christ.

roflmao. ooohkay.

LOTS of info regarding that very point from the egyptian book of the dead. Take a minute yourself and research it.

Not interested thanks. I've been accused of "reaching" for proof with better examples as this.

Merriam-Webster.com wrote:Etymology:
Middle English Crist, from Old English, from Latin Christus, from Greek Christos, literally, anointed, from chriein.

This word "christ" is a greek word, not Hebrew/Jewish. I don't see where it would be relevent. homonyms are a bad measure of proof.

Suit yourself Duper. Do no research at all.


Lothar, As for the misunderstanding about the website reference. I am a member of a fishing website (I get fishing reports in my locale) FishBC. Fishing is my hobby – In my work I study them.

BTW, this is what you asked. “JohnG, where did you originally find this referenced? I'm curious to see what was said about it.”

You query wasn’t very specific. I am aware of your smugness in your overall demeanor, for example in your comment, “Several of your comments indicate that your comprehension level was lass than adequate.”

Commenting how you have “shamed and embarrassed” other posters also sent up a red flag on your character.

Anyway, some good points you bring up regarding the Sargon/Moses comparisons. “Who borrowed from whom? ”It would seem that the story of Sargon (from the same wiki entry) is not the only one to share similarities:

Karna - \"The child Karna was borne down the river and picked up by King Dhritarashtra's charioteer, Adhiratha, a suta. Karna was raised by him and his wife Radha (not the same Radha who was Lord Krishna's Companion at Mathura) as their son and named Vasusena (born with wealth),\"

There are several \"enchanted\" birth stories about heroic figures from these times. It is a common theme. Semiramis, Paris of Greek mythology, Telephus, Perseus, Romulus and Remus (The servant ordered to kill the twins could not, however, and placed the two in a basket and laid the basket on the banks of the Tiber river and went away. The river, which was in flood, rose and gently carried the basket and the twins downstream), and there are many more.

It would seem that a lot of borrowing was going on, some of these stories predate the Moses story.

The other point I was trying to make regarding the precession of the ages is that maybe the early Christians weren't completely interested in the timeline fitting the actual events of astrology. But the basic events had to fit what was already common belief at the time. The Mithra example discusses that it was developed at the same time as Christianity and one was a direct copy of the other. However, Mithraism is based heavily on the precessions and astrology. It would be difficult to say who copied who after so many centuries but if Mithraism copied Christianity, why base it heavily on precession? If it was the other way around, why did Christianity downplay precession? Mithraism was banned by the Roman emporer Theodosius who decided Christianity should be the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

Regarding the comparisons of Horus to Jesus. I will personally take on the task of searching the book of the dead for the information. There is an online version and from what I’ve read, the version has not deviated from the original in essence. In my first few minutes clicking through, by fluke I already found one statement that checked out. This one:

• Horus...I open the Tuat that I may drive away the darkness. Jesus says I am come a light unto the world.

This going to take some time, I am a busy guy with children, a job, and a yard full of chores – but I will get back and cite all my findings. This research is just a fun/side interest so don't expect anything for a week or so. Here is the link I will use for my search.

http://www.touregypt.net/bkofdead.htm

Cheers.

JohnG wrote:I am aware of your smugness in your overall demeanor, for example in your comment, “Several of your comments indicate that your comprehension level was lass than adequate.”

This being the internet (and especially this particular forum*), I expect everyone to have thick enough skin to handle a harsh but honest assessment of their arguments. If I think your arguments suck and you got zomg-pwn3d, I will say so. If I think you make a good point that warrants consideration, I will say so. I don't want to coddle or be coddled; like a good mathematician, I just want information. Please don't take it personally as a sign of disrespect (if I don't respect you, I'll come out and say that directly.)

Let me be more clear in my criticism: I found many of your comments repeated the same general or even specific ideas I'd already responded to, and many others simply missed what I was saying. This, combined with your earlier comment that you suspected my post was not worth reading, makes me suspect you skimmed. I'd appreciate if you took the time to understand what I've already said, so that you can make new arguments and I can give new responses, rather than repeating what's already been said.

*This is not your average internet forum filled with people who don't know each other. I've been friends with most of the people on the "other side" for years, and have LANned with most of them. We don't pull punches -- if Grendel or Testi see me make a bad point because I didn't do my homework, you'd better believe they'll shame and embarrass me for it, and that we'll still be friends after. Don't mistake my aggressive pursuit of knowledge for disrespect.

some good points you bring up regarding the Sargon/Moses comparisons. “Who borrowed from whom?”It would seem that the story of Sargon (from the same wiki entry) is not the only one to share similarities.... It is a common theme.... some of these stories predate the Moses story.

It is a common theme. But, to substantiate the claim that some of the stories (in the form in question) predate the Moses story, you need actual archaeological evidence from prior to the time Moses is supposed to have lived. If you don't have that, which as far as I can tell nobody does, then it's all speculation. If all we have are scrolls from several centuries after the time of Moses, none of us can make a credible case for story X predating story Y. All we can do is pick the history we prefer for external reasons.

maybe the early Christians weren't completely interested in the timeline fitting the actual events of astrology. But the basic events had to fit what was already common belief at the time.

I'm willing to grant that the timeline itself could have been unimportant.

Here's the problem: they didn't fit the basic events to common belief. There are a few sections of the text that might possibly be interpreted that way with enough stretching, but the majority of the text falls well outside of common belief. Some of the "fish" stories could be made to fit into the Pisces persona, but the "lamb" stories, the "tax collector" stories, the "Sabbath" stories, the "healing" stories, and so on, don't.

I've read and studied the Bible over the course of several years. I know the material that's in there. I see subtle and powerful lessons given throughout the text -- well beyond what I've seen anywhere else. (My interpretive framework is such that I'm sure I'm finding lessons that were actually intended, not reading things into the text.) I see the book as a coherent whole. I understand how each book relates to each other book, how people's understanding of God evolved over time, and so on. There's a LOT of material in the Bible, which is interconnected on many levels. Knowledge of each passage gives insight into other passages, which eventually give rise to overarching themes with surprising depth (much deeper than I ever anticipated.)

In comparison, the film presents a pair of theories that have been mashed together. It takes a few sentences and a few fragments of stories here and there and pieces together symbolism to support the "astrological age" theory, but many of these interpretations are directly contradicted by other sections of the same stories. It plays fast and loose with easily verifiable facts like the position of certain constellations. It grabs pieces of the stories of Jesus and Moses and compares them to other historical figures, without sourcing the comparisons to any ancient documents. It explains a few sections of the text in a piecemeal fashion, and ignores the rest of it. When you hear this theory, it doesn't enlighten you about any part of the text it doesn't explicitly quote. Honestly, the theory reminds me of young-earth creationism -- it twists, falsifies, misinterprets, and hacks at the data until it's formed an inelegant and unenlightening mess.

It's very, very hard to take seriously a theory that proposes perhaps a couple dozen shaky connections when I can read the same passages and see hundreds of good ones. It's hard to take seriously a theory that accounts for a few stories about fish and the number 153, and fails to account for stories about sin, grace, redemption, moral excellence, love, compassion, sacrifice, Law, and forgiveness. And it's especially hard to take seriously a theory that is consistently, egregiously wrong about the facts.

if Mithraism copied Christianity, why base it heavily on precession?

If I may be so bold as to speculate (keeping in mind that speculation is worth exactly zero): if Christianity was gaining popularity and precession was "common belief", it seems a hybrid of the two would be expected to pop up. I suspect Christianity does a better job connecting to the Jewish scriptures, though.

I will personally take on the task of searching the book of the dead for the information....
I already found one statement that checked out.

Thanks. I have to say, I totally respect anybody who's willing to do real research.

If and when you find such statements, please provide appropriate references. I have no doubt there are some, and I think it'll be interesting to see which ones they are and what sort of pattern we can draw from them.

Do you happen to know how old the manuscripts/tablets are that the EBotD is being translated from? I suspect it's from before the time of Jesus, but it'd be a shame to do tons of research and then find out it's not.

John, let me put it this way. I have neither the time, resources, nor the energy to learn egyptology and astrology to the point that I could affirm or rebut these arguments accountably.

I don't consider wikipedia an all together accurate source of information. This would and SHOULD require hours and hours (months really) of reading in a library pouring over documents published over the last 100 years by authorities in these fields. Not 4+ hours on the internet.

still, In my opinion, bull is bull, it smells and is obvious.

Symantic similarities in not good foundational proof for a theory. I can be wordy with my answers, but in this point of the thread I don't feel it's necessary.

I would like to add that this whole themes seems to hinge on the assumption the bible and all the ancient Hebrew documents were compiled at one time and that Jesus was a fictional character. Neither of these is true and can be easily supported by historical records and archaeological data. It also presupposes that the Egyptian gods are/were real; neither is this true.

(lunch time, need to cut it short)

JohnG wrote:I am a member of a fishing website (I get fishing reports in my locale) FishBC

I started to ask, "They were discussing the DescentBB and astrology on a FISHING forum?" And then I realized, we are discussing a fishing forum and astrology on the DescentBB....

I guess it's not that bizarre.

Duper – I understand the time involved in researching such material, but I don’t see the harm in trying. The antithesis to this is having a completely uninformed opinion. I do take what I read with a grain (truckload) of salt. I also don’t believe the stories were compiled at one time. One of my points is the derivative mythology had been going since the Egyptians and were mutated by different societies over time. It would seem the basic version was adopted by particular societies in relatively short periods of time (over a few centuries/decades in some instances). I definitely don’t presuppose that Egyptian myths are true, just that they are a basis of doctrines that followed.

Lothar – Lets put the insulting insinuations behind us and continue this discussion (if you wish) as you say: like mathematicians discussing information. It is hard to read your intentions regarding certain comments on an internet forum. I can’t detect sarcasm or good-natured ribbing here. I also feel there are points in my threads that you are not considering as well, and that is why I reiterate them in different ways.

Back on topic

Regarding your statement: “It is a common theme. But, to substantiate the claim that some of the stories (in the form in question) predate the Moses story, you need actual archaeological evidence from prior to the time Moses is supposed to have lived. If you don't have that, which as far as I can tell nobody does, then it's all speculation. If all we have are scrolls from several centuries after the time of Moses, none of us can make a credible case for story X predating story Y. All we can do is pick the history we prefer for external reasons. “

I’m even having great difficulties substantiating the existence of Moses, let alone whose story predates whom. It appears the writing of Exodus occurred long after the events were to have taken place. Maybe you can add more on this to this discussion. Egyptians kept excellent records and they have none of Israelites living in Egypt. There was a Canaanite migration recorded in Egyptian history, but not as slaves – the Hyksos (a Semitic tribe) ruled from 200 to 500 years and were expelled. They didn’t escape. They were dethroned rulers.(many sources) Also, the timing of the Hyksos doesn’t fit with the supposed timing of the Israelites in Egypt. The Sinai desert is devoid of evidence of a large amount of Jews roaming it for 40 years, and so on…Archeologists are digging up the desert trying to find any clues, and still nothing. (BTW, I am from a Jewish family) The following link is typical of what I’m finding from objective archaeological projects:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/moses.php

Here in British Columbia, Canada, archaeologists have no trouble finding 10 000 year old first-nation campsites in a rainforest – with no bronze age relics. Experienced eyes can find ancient artifacts all through the mountains here.

Regarding the Sargon of Akkad stories, here is an interesting paper that seems to be objective:

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Document ... exodus.htm

The conclusion I gather is that’s it’s shady from both perspectives, but understanding that human nature has a tendency for art to imitate art, and stories to be passed down and “modernized” along the way, the “non-provable” stories of Sargon predate the “non-provable” stories of Moses. This paper seems to jibe with other research I have done that is not from some “new-age” philosophical source. such as the countless astrology sites with clouds and sparkles in the background.

Finding good research on this stuff is daunting to say the least.

I agree that all we can do is pick a story we like. I think we are reaching common ground here. It’s tough relying on archaeological evidence and supposed timelines when we are dealing with a story that has no evidence of occurring. As you say, with no real evidence we should exclude biblical timelines from the discussion.

It’s not a stretch to suppose that as society moved away from hunter/gatherers into an agricultural society, they planted and harvested their crops according to the calendars they devised by mapping stars and constellations. There is a wealth of archaeological information that supports this type of use of astronomy.

Also, what we know is that astronomy has been a major part of society’s knowledge base for many millennia. I was just reading about a disk found in Europe dating 7000BC that contained detailed astrological information. That’s a drop in the bucket regarding the mass of astrological information collected from ancient times. The star maps from ancient Egypt for example. The Narmer plate, discovered in 1898, is dated as 32nd century BC, shows that the Egyptians were likely aware of precession. They must have noticed their Lion god, Hu, slowly dropping from the sky.

To take it further, there are several megaliths that appear to have been built with astronomical relevance. For example, the henges on the Salisbury plain, the pyramids at Giza, and many others. Considering the need for solid, immovable objects to gauge slight variances in star movement, it is highly likely that over time precessional change could be mapped as well. They did not have the knowledge resources that Hipparchus had to figure out exactly what was going on (the physics), but they would have known that something is throwing their calendars off and the point on the megalith that a star would rise above is in a different spot than where their great grandfather said it did. These people weren’t ignorant to star movement. As I mentioned, the Egyptians kept excellent records and did a very good job of keeping them intact.

Regarding your statement: “I'm willing to grant that the timeline itself could have been unimportant. Here's the problem: they didn't fit the basic events to common belief. There are a few sections of the text that might possibly be interpreted that way with enough stretching, but the majority of the text falls well outside of common belief. Some of the \"fish\" stories could be made to fit into the Pisces persona, but the \"lamb\" stories, the \"tax collector\" stories, the \"Sabbath\" stories, the \"healing\" stories, and so on, don't.”

In doing some referencing, it is clear that the language of astronomy is used in God’s communication with Job (Job 38:31) ”the sweet influence of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion”. Also Job 38:32 – “Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?” (Mazzaroth being the 12 signs of the zodiac)

Job is able to understand what God is talking about; also, in order to understand the text, the reader must also understand the concepts of astrology. There are many examples of these types of communications in the bible. I could cite more but I am sure you know what I am talking about. It is odd because I believe somewhere there is a forbiddance of astrology in the bible, yet the characters and readers must be able to understand the references, in order to understand the meaning. My point here is that the bible is full of astrological references and leaving out the mysterious knowledge of precession would almost be a glaring omission.

I call the knowledge mysterious because the actual physics weren’t known, and upon research there were many indications that they were aware of it. ie: prophecies from different cultures attached to the “falling of the sky”

I have been reading the Old Testament while researching this information and you are correct in saying that there is a lot of info outside of astrological references. There is a whole lot of vengeance, cryptic references, lessons learned the hard way, etc…but I still think the astrological knowledge was tied into the books, as it was the allusion that the knowledge itself is derived from the “heavens”. As I previously mentioned, the astrological knowledge of the day (of which was vast) was interleaved in the communication.



In regards to the future Passover references in the movie. I’ve reread the Luke 22 passage, and in Luke 22:16, there does seem to be a reference to a future Passover, ( http://bible.cc/luke/22-16.htm ) aside from the one they are about to partake. What is your take on this passage? And then we have the Luke 22:10 passage about the man carrying the jug of water…

These were archetypal motifs of the time based on astrological occurrences and the fact that people’s lives (crops, celebrations…) revolved around the movement of the stars. Bulls, sheep, fish, water bearers… when the changes of the ages or mass change are imminent, zodiac analogies seem to appear.

The Bull story is an integral part of the story of Moses, not a minor detail. Fish references, where they are relevant to the story, are mainly confined to the stories of Jesus. The water bearer reference is uncanny.

I find these theories very logical from a sociological standpoint. I see far less evidence supporting other theories than I have supporting the theory that the bible is derivative of earlier writings based on sun worship, astrology, and cultural folklore, with or without precessional knowledge. Humanity, in all its cultures, tends to humanize the objects and phenomena around them/us. Children do it at play constantly. It would seem very logical that ancient people humanized the sun, moon, stars, as well as elements of the natural world. Judging by the type of architecture, writings and art of ancient times, it would seem that people liked to connect themselves to the “otherworldly” phenomena that filled the skies.

As a bible scholar, I am sure you have heard these theories before. As I surf through cyberspace (do people still use that word?) I see all kinds of viewpoints, arguments, concepts, and different interpretations. I am not a religious person by any means, just interested in history, sociology and different perspectives.I don’t think it a big stretch or a leap of faith to suppose any of these theories. I am researching as I go.

In regards to your question: “Do you happen to know how old the manuscripts/tablets are that the EBotD is being translated from? I suspect it's from before the time of Jesus, but it'd be a shame to do tons of research and then find out it's not. “

It appears that the book was written/evolved over a long period of time, roughly 3000 BC to 1640 BC.

The ancient Egyptians themselves have standardized the versions. It would seem the order of the texts has been arranged according to various sources, but that doesn’t seem to be important because they are separate “spells”. The text was inscribed on the sarcophagus to help the deceased through the underworld, thus, it appears what we have today is translated from the original sources. I have 2 online versions and they seem identical. There doesn’t seem to be any debate over the meanings of the texts and transcriptions.

Like I say it will take some time, if no cited references exist then I hope I can provide some!

Regards,

John

JohnG wrote:I’m even having great difficulties substantiating the existence of Moses, let alone whose story predates whom. It appears the writing of Exodus occurred long after the events were to have taken place..... (*)the “non-provable” stories of Sargon predate the “non-provable” stories of Moses.... I think we are reaching common ground here.

Agreed on all but (*). The stories of Sargon's later life are definitely older than the stories of Moses, but the birth story -- the story they seem to have in common -- hasn't been established to predate much of anything, in either case. It's tough to say anything conclusive about it (like the movie tried to do in its typical propagandist style.)

There is a wealth of archaeological information that supports [agricultural] use of astronomy [going way, way back in history.]

it is clear that the language of astronomy is used in God’s communication with Job (Job 38:31).... there is a forbiddance of astrology in the bible, yet the characters and readers must be able to understand the references.... leaving out the mysterious knowledge of precession would almost be a glaring omission.

It's clear that the Israelites and other Bible characters were aware of astrology and various ancient religions. It's assumed that people knew who Baal is, knew the names of the various Egyptian gods that are overcome in the plagues in Exodus 7-12, and so on. There are many passages that say "don't do X" where modern readers get confused, but ancient readers would've recognized X as a practice in worship of some other god.

There are some astrological references, despite the prohibition of astrology. Just like there are references to plenty of idols, despite the prohibition of idolatry. Like you said, it's part of the common culture. But there aren't references to actually drawing knowledge from the stars*. Instead, there are statements that people should NOT draw knowledge from the stars, and statements that God is the one who created the stars.

* except in Jesus' birth story, in which the only people who recognize the Messiah has come are some lowly shepherds and some foreign astrologers, while the people who SHOULD have known didn't.

I don't see how leaving out the "mysterious knowledge of precession" would be an omission. The OT doesn't reference astrology as a source of knowledge, so there's no reason to expect it to reference it except in passing. And we don't really see it referenced except in passing.

in Luke 22:16, there does seem to be a reference to a future Passover aside from the one they are about to partake. What is your take on this passage?

Jesus says to find a guy carrying water who'll show them where to celebrate passover. They find the guy and he shows them where to celebrate the passover. Then at the meal, Jesus says this is the last passover "until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God" -- a reference to heaven. The key point to note here is that the water carrier is not associated with the future passover, but the present one.

when the changes of the ages or mass change are imminent, zodiac analogies seem to appear.

The Bull story is an integral part of the story of Moses, not a minor detail. Fish references, where they are relevant to the story, are mainly confined to the stories of Jesus. The water bearer reference is uncanny.

The Zodiac references a number of things that are common to life in that era. In particular, major food sources (fish, bulls, sheep, possibly crabs.) We're not seeing references to sea-goats here. There's nothing particularly surprising about the fact that livestock are mentioned in the Bible.

It's not as though those things suddenly appear in the story only at the specific times you mentioned, or that they follow a particularly impressive pattern. Bulls and sheep appear throughout the Old Testament, with neither taking supremacy from the other or anything like that. Fish are mentioned several times in the Old Testament, and there's a water carrier in Deuteronomy 29:11. Jesus hangs out with fishermen, and there are maybe 5 or 6 "fish" stories he's associated with (some are told in multiple books, which makes them seem more common.) Jesus is also called the "Lion of Judah", but that particular zodiac symbol doesn't fit the theory.

It's also not as though zodiac symbols are the only things that star prominently in the stories. You have Moses with the bull... but you also have Moses with the stone tablets, Moses with the staff, Moses with the ark of the covenant, and so on. You have Jesus with the fish... but you also have Jesus with the prostitutes and tax collectors, Jesus with the healing, Jesus with the bread, Jesus with the wine, and so on.

I see far less evidence supporting other theories than I have supporting the theory that the bible is derivative of earlier writings based on sun worship, astrology, and cultural folklore

I see very, very little evidence connecting to sun worship, astrology, or other prior religions. The authors were no doubt aware of them, but they're generally referenced negatively -- don't do X because it's what idolaters do; God created the sun and moon and stars, and worshiping those things is forbidden; God is bigger than Egypt's river god.

The case that the Bible (and, particularly, the New Testament) was based on sun worship or astrology is completely flaky. A far better theory about the New Testament is that it was based on (surprise!) the Old Testament and Jewish tradition. The Old Testament, in turn, seems to be based around the concept of a single, transcendent God who is definitely NOT the sun, a bull, or an earthly king. Could there be some cultural folklore creeping in? Yes, perhaps even a lot of it. But astrology and sun-worship don't fit with the text.

In regards to your argument # 2, and last post:

The Christians festivals are a carryover from pagan festivals. You agree. You make a comment or two about the semantics about the narration, but not an argument against the assertion.

You mention the cross with a circle. You are correct in saying that it is one of many variations of the symbols (your words are “I hardly ever see it”).

The Celtic cross, from what I can gather, is a 9th century (or 7th, depending on the source), amalgamation of two other pagan symbols. It is the cross representing the sun and the circle representing the moon. You could use this argument against the zeitgeist movie’s claim that it was an astrological symbol because they used the Celtic cross in its imagery.

Many reports state that Christians used this symbol to help convert pagan followers. The Christian reasoning for adopting the cross was as a symbol of Jesus’ crucifixion, although no one knows conclusively the actual shape of the object supposedly used.

However, the sun wheel, a circle with a cross inside, is much, much older. Crossed circles have been found etched in stones from Paleolithic sites in the Pyrenees according to many sources. They have been found all through the usual haunts of ancient societies. These times in human history represent the dawning of agriculture. It is called the sun wheel because it is said to represent the sun, and the four seasonal quadrants of the year. It is a prehistoric religious symbol.

I think this is the symbol being referred to in the zeitgeist movie, although they used Celtic crosses in the imagery.

Because you don’t see them around much anymore doesn’t negate their origins or existence. The circle/cross variation was around for much longer than the current adaptation. Some variations of the symbol have a dot in the centre of the cross indicating the sun. The movie is pointing out that Jesus’ image has been used as the centre of the sun circle.

The religious art of early christianity is full of symbolism. The use of the halo in early Christian art depicts Christ with a crossed halo, some with strong yellow beams of light forming the cross. Most definitely representing the sun. Others have different colours forming the cross, nonetheless, they are sun-wheels. In those times, Christ is the only figure depicted with a halo/sun-wheel.

Sure, Jesus today is not always portrayed with a sun cross behind his head, but it was a common theme in early Christian times, and that is what is being discussed.

Actually, before the cross, the first Christian symbol was a fish. (yet you still won’t associate Jesus with the fish???)

http://www.eureka4you.com/fish/fishsymbol.htm

This link states a few possibilities of the meaning, but it jibes with other research that this is in fact true. Other research has differing speculations on why the fish was used, but it is conclusive (many sources, Christian and otherwise) that the fish symbol was the original.

In regards to your statement:

“The movie gives a list of statements about Jesus that it interprets as sun-related: light of the world, risen, will come again, glory of God, works of darkness, born again, coming in the clouds, son in heaven, and crown of thorns (as sunrays)... (and doesn't explain the purple cloak, among other things.)”

You are correct, those are a short list of references to Jesus as the light, but the lack of using a purple cloak reference negates it? (note: was it purple or crimson?, there seems to be uncertainty in religious discussion).

Here is a weird discussion about purple cloaks.

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/transfiguration2.html

It has some vague references to other stories but I don’t think the omission of the cloak says anything one way or another. This article states that there is a reference to earlier stories about Isis and Mithras – but the link is speculative and I don’t offer it up as evidence. It’s not a “must read” article. The point is we don’t know for sure if it is symbolic or not. Because we don’t know the answer to something doesn’t make it a case for one argument or the other.

I think the purple robe is a symbol of royalty. Anyway...

The point of that is Horus is also the light, the sun – robe or no robe.

In regards to the claims about Jesus’ birth, bright star in the east, three kings…

Firstly, my instinct tells me to look at the sky from the time the story was written by Matthew. Also, from what I can gather, the story was written in Alexandria, Egypt. Not Jerusalem.

The time of writing is up for debate, but I used 50 AD as an average based on several sources. Here’s one:

http://catholichomeschooling.vernaheigh ... age58.html

(sidenote: notice the sun wheel behind Jesus’ head – again, common in early depictions of Jesus)

Using Skyview Cafe (cool site BTW) look to the east at sunset (18:00hrs) from Alexandria, Egypt, Dec 25th, 50AD. There it is. There are the three stars of Orion’s belt lined up pointing to Sirius that has newly risen from the eastern horizon. Click on the time counters to scroll the sky and watch “the birth” happen, as it would have appeared to Matthew, during the time of writing the book of Matthew.

I can’t recall for sure, I don’t think the movie states when exactly the timing of the event, it is just pointing out the relationship. The sun follows a path in the vicinity of the southern cross, and I do remember a graphic in the movie where they superimposed a sun over the southern cross. I realize they are making a point using visuals, and I also disagree with this type of message conveyance, it isn’t necessary here – there is an overload of good information available to make the point.

There is much discussion which day/year/time this takes place. This is just my guess judging from when/where the book of Matthew was written. The movie doesn’t get into the different points of view of when the Jesus birth story is supposed to take place, and I can understand why. You could fill a 3 hour documentary covering just that.

The fact is that three stars called magi point to the bright star in the east (Sirius) from where the sun will rise.

Briefly, Sirius relates to the ancient Egyptians as such: they thought of the star as the 'soul' of the Goddess Isis. Before the 12th millennium BC, Sirius was below the horizon line (as seen from the region of Cairo/Giza). Due to precession, It made its first appearance in the skies at that place in c.10,500 BC. I would imagine the appearance of such a bright celestial body made quite an impression on that culture. Also the rising of Sirius occurred when the constellation of Virgo was rising in the east, which may partly explain why the star became the symbol of a virgin-goddess. We do not know when exactly Sirius became identified to the goddess Isis, but the idea certainly goes back to the origin of Egyptian culture. According to Egyptian legend, it was from the 'womb' of Isis/Sirius that was born the divine child, Horus. (an immaculate conception of sorts)

There is lots of information about Egyptian culture regarding the star Sirius, Equinox’s, calendars, gods and goddesses and the importance of all this to them.

In regards to your comment about Virgo and it’s relationship with Jesus’ birth, the house of bread (Bethlehem) and the fact you are having a hard time connecting Virgo being known as the house of bread, and why the Bible refers to Bethlehem in Judea.

I am not going to do a ton of research on this, just clarify what the movie is saying. I don’t think the movie does a good job on this one either.

In august (harvest time) the sun moves into Virgo. In Hebrew “bayth” means house, and “leh’-khem” means bread. Ancient Egyptians also referred to that particular constellation as the house of bread - the virgin holds a sheaf of wheat/harvest time. The zodiac positions were called “houses”. On an astrolabe (a historical Greek star chart of sorts) the sun passes between Virgo’s legs, thus giving birth to the sun. At the alleged time of Jesus, there was no town on earth called Bethlehem. At that time, the word Bethlehem was only known as a reference to harvest time.

In regards to your comments on the number twelve:

You are correct in saying that Israel had more than twelve rulers, the movie is pointing to biblical references (not a real one). It’s the biblical references that the movie is talking about. Genesis 17:20 – “He will be the father of twelve rulers” also Genesis 25:16 “These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve rulers”

…and yes you are also correct in saying that princes and rulers are different translations of the same passages. It would seem the creators of the film misinterpreted the information given to them, or they received it from a bad source. I am not about to discredit the basic idea of the film’s message from this error. If you took that approach with the bible we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The wealth of information I am finding is vast and well researched. Some of it is more objective than others but nonetheless there are too many comparisons too ignore.

There is also conflicting data in support of these theories as expected from trying to uncover a 2000 year old mystery that contains no archeological evidence that supports conclusively the biblical story to begin with. The amount of time the film put into this particular point was about 5 seconds. Even though there are a lot of sources linking the relevance of biblical ‘twelves’ with astrological ‘twelves’, I haven’t read anything conclusive enough yet that makes me feel it adds to the argument for either case.

Regarding our discussion about the Moses/Sargon story: I also concur that the movie made some matter of fact statements about theoretical research. Even though I disagree with the propoganda-ist approach there, my main point is there is no proof stating that the Sargon story was a copy of Moses, and considering that the general folklore about Sargon is much older than the folklore about Moses, I know where I would put my money as the original story, including the birth story.

You stated – “But there aren't references to actually drawing knowledge from the stars. Instead, there are statements that people should NOT draw knowledge from the stars, and statements that God is the one who created the stars.”

Naturally. The idea is to draw people away from their old philosophies, but by familiar means. This is likley the first (of many) examples of Christianity using this technique to absorb other cultures. This is clearly documented throughout the history of Christianity and was not relegated to early Christian times.

A few years back, I did a study about first contact of European culture with North American first nations culture. They allowed the FN to worship their own gods, for awhile, and the missionaries drew parallels for them with the Christian faith, before they dropped the hammer. Eventually they took the children away from their families and placed them in schools far away from their parents to negate contact with them and their culture.

To “ease” the convertion of Islamists, there are movements to build mosque like churches, removing chairs from the churches, adopting aspects of the pilgrimage to Mecca with an “eye” towards the “fulfillment” of Christ.

Here is a statement from Arthur French, a Christian missionary regarding the methodology of “Christianizing” Muslims in India 80 years ago:

“If we are insistant in urging the claims of \"specialized\" Missions, let it be remembered that until Arabic is conquered Islam remains. Islam is wedded to Arabic in indissoluble bonds till death do them apart, either the death of Arabic or the death of Islam. Arabic must be Christianised, if we were to win Islam. Islam must be won, if we were to win India. Christian Arabic Prayers, Hymns, Liturgies, Lectionaries; the Five Hours of Prayers; the Call to Prayer; Churches furnished more in Mosque-fashion and erected in Sarcen style; these are the methods which Missions to Moslems need. We have to take over from Islam all that we can with the least possible dislocation.”

Replace the word \"Muslim\" or \"First Nations\" with \"pagan\" and there you have it.

From earlier pagan times, there is the adaptation of the cross, the prayer position, calendars, vows of silence, blessings, church buildings, holiness, vestments (status robes worn by preists), and so on…

Now, in the understanding of this knowledge you consider the idea that Christianity adopted astrological beliefs “flaky”?

Knowing that Christianity has used these tactics all throughout its history to absorb new cultures, you would still find this difficult to believe?

As I’ve indicated, I also found the narrative of this movie to be propoganda-esque in nature. As I research, I find other sources of the same basic concepts that are better researched and put forth in a more organized and intelligent manner. This movie is not going to change any minds in the way it tries to humiliate theists. However, I have heard similar theories before and spoke briefly with a few respected (by me) historians about this topic in the past. So, I was curious about the analogies put forth. Again, I am not putting forth that the bible stories are nothing but astrological analogies, but as I’ve said before, are a familiar base in which to communicate the stories to the people. The movie should be clear about this.

And some more regarding your statement:

“The case that the Bible (and, particularly, the New Testament) was based on sun worship or astrology is completely flaky”

Understand that from my perspective, one “flaky” philosophy being absorbed into another “flaky” philosophy is not much of a stretch.

That being said, I read a little of some of your blog to find out your perspective outside of this movie and I respect the fact that you have distanced yourself from the actions of past/present Christians who carry a sword/gun in one hand and a cross in the other.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see that you have also taken some of the bibles’ more extremist attitudes with a grain of salt. Again, I respect you for that. But I have to ask, at what point do you draw the line and say “I am not a Christian, I am someone who believes in treating people with respect and having a caring heart towards my fellow man/woman”?

That may be too much a personal question for a light debate such as this, so no need to answer that.

Regards,

JohnG

As a BTW:

'Bite' is house in Hebrew.

'Bet' is 'house of'. As in Bet-Kvarod (House of the buried or cemetery.

Bet-Lechem, House of the bread, is indeed Bethlehem and is pronounced as such in Israel.

A minor point, but hey, wars have been fought over for less.

Interesting discussion btw.

EDIT: The Mrs just told me that in Arabic it means 'the house of meat'....go figure.

JohnG wrote:This is likley the first (of many) examples of Christianity using this technique to absorb other cultures. This is clearly documented throughout the history of Christianity and was not relegated to early Christian times.
...
Knowing that Christianity has used these tactics all throughout its history to absorb new cultures, you would still find this difficult to believe?

Yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with good documentation to back it up, Christianity began absorbing a great deal of paganism only a few hundred years after it's start. That's one of the reasons I'm a protestant.

BUT, that is an entirely different question than asking if the original church was based on Astrology. Pointing out that vows of silence, the celibacy of the priesthood, the celebration of Christmas, etc, were clearly adopted from surrounding religions at a date well after the founding of Christianity does NOT prove that Christianity, at it's founding, was based upon paganism.

As Lothar has pointed out several times, when we read the writings of early Christianity, we find nothing there about absorbing paganism, but a LOT about avoiding it. And the symbols are clearly used in a different way.

For example, let's look at Christmas, a much debated and well documented topic. We find that Christianity, well after it's founding, incorporated a holiday that just happened to line up with a major pagan feast. Suspicious to begin with, but not damning evidence, could have been coincidence. But it starts looking MORE obvious when you realize that, according to the Gospels, Christ could NOT have been born in winter. THEN we get to the serious evidence, the symbols. Look at the Christmas Tree, the Yule log, the holly and the ivy, etc. Now clearly these symbols had important meanings for pagans celebrating the winter solstice. Also, just as clearly, they make no SENSE in Christianity. What do these symbols tell us about the birth of Christ? Nothing. No one usually even pretends that they do. They are tacked on, and OBVIOUSLY tacked on.

Please note, I do NOT want to turn this thread into a "Christmas" debate, we've had those, and I'm not against Christmas. I'm just using it as an illustration and my point is simply that in this case, when the later church added pagan symbols, it's obvious that the symbols were stuck in after the fact. They make no sense in the context of the story.

However, this doesn't WORK with the symbols in the basic gospel. Fish, for example. As Lothar keeps pointing out, Christ did much of his mission on the sea-shore, and had fishermen in his company. It would actually be quite surprising if there WEREN'T fish stories in his ministry. And where there are fish in the story, they make perfect sense in context, they are not "tacked on" after the fact.

Basically, to show that one culture borrowed a symbol from another, it is not sufficient just to show that both cultures used the same symbol. You must show that the symbol is original in one culture, and derivative in the other. For example, Lions. Lions are used as important symbols in LOT'S of cultures. But this is hardly surprising. Lions are strong impressive animals and it would be EXPECTED that they would show up INDEPENDENTLY in different cultures. It would be entirely inadequate to prove derivation by merely proving two separate cultures both used the lion as a symbol of strength.

There is nothing in the way the Bible uses the symbols of rams, bulls, fish or grain that implies derivation. It is EXPECTED that a culture that subsist largely on herding, farming, and fishing would find significance in symbols such as rams, bulls, fish, and grain.

Kilarin

In response to:

“Christianity began absorbing a great deal of paganism only a few hundred years after it's start… and with good documentation to back it up”

I am also aware that Christianity has absorbed a lot of Pagan rituals after it’s start. I am also aware that Christianity absorbed a lot of religious doctrine at its beginning, too. There were many religions around at the time that have a lot in common with Christianity and Judaism…and also with good documentation to back it up.

Who is this story about?

A god/man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, which are appalled that he refers to himself as the Son of God. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy- a willing self-sacrifice. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him until he assumes his divine form. He is also depicted crucified.

The story of Dionysus is well documented, the story varies, but all variances are from before the time of Jesus. I recommend reading the story of Dionysus, he was quite a mythical character who sure liked to party.

Ixion is another God (Greek) who is depicted as crucified (on a cross)

And what religion does this refer to?

An inscription in the Vatican states plainly, \"He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.\"

The inscription is indeed from the Vatican, but it is from a temple that the Vatican was built on dedicated to the God Mithras.

The Mithraic religion, that died out not long after the beginning of Christianity, had many parallels. Mithras was a solar deity (called the redeemer) known as the light of the world, and the Good Shepherd. He shared communion meals of bread and wine with his followers.

The crucifixtion and resurrection of Attis, (“Lamb of God” in Greek mythology) was celebrated annually, with ritual communions of bread and wine. He had a virgin mother as well. Attis and his mother, Cybele’s predecessor is the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar, where modern Christian’s get the name Easter (celebrating the resurrection of Christ)

I’ve been reading Egyptian texts that date thousands and thousands of years before any of these religions (I must say they are tedious reading). They are the earliest religious texts known to us. What is interesting about them is how they evolved over time. The main trilogy of Isis, Osirus, and Horus (The Mother, The Father, The Child) has changed forms according to regional beliefs, and it eventually morphed into a monotheistic form. Much is not available online as I am finding out and quite expensive to purchase, but many of the stories are available (in the original translation) and not hard to find. There is a lot more information aside from the Book Of The Dead. The Pyramids contained all kinds of documentation on their belief systems.

When I say that astronomy played a role in the conception of the bible, you must consider that it’s the evolution of these religions and all these other socio/political elements that are a part of that literature as well. It's an amalgamation of ideas and cultures.

Its important to note as well that Emporer Constantine, who legitimized Christianity in Rome, worshipped Sol Invictus – an amalgamation of solar Gods Mithras, Helios, and Apollo. The story of Jesus fit his idea of what a God should be.

You can argue that the bible says do not worship false Gods, and I have read and understood both your statements that the bible makes it clear to avoid it, but my main point is the bible is a derivative piece of literature.

For all I know there may have been a cult in Persia that scribed \"Do not worship false idols\" and the biblical authors thought it fit nicely.

I don’t want to dwell on the fish stuff either; I just wanted to acknowledge that as the first symbol of Christianity (the thing that identified the entire movement) it had more to do with it than, as you say, they lived near some water.

Cheers,

John

For those that are interested, here are some links to information about the cult of Mithras. There are also Christian based sites that attempt to weaken the link between Christianity and Mithraism, but they haven’t done a very good job IMO. I am approaching this with an open mind.

Here is the bio of David Ulansey:

\"I am a Professor in the Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness Program at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, and before I came to CIIS I taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Boston University, Barnard College (Columbia University), the University of Vermont, and Princeton University. My specialty is the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, especially the ancient Mystery religions, Gnosticism, ancient cosmology, and early Christianity. I also teach courses on the evolution of consciousness, Jungian thought, alchemy, the metaphysics of cyberspace, and applied deep ecology, and I have been a frequent lecturer at the San Francisco C.G. Jung Institute.\"

Basically, the paper is of scientific nature in the sense that it openly claims that there is a wealth of unknown information, it relies on the facts, and makes any presuppositions based on those facts. It discusses the pre-Hipparchus view of precession, the significance of the Bull to Mithraism. Note that it doesn’t attempt to link Moses with the cult.

I realize he is selling a book, but his info checks out with other sources, I use this link because it assembles that information in one link.

In keeping with the tradition of most fact based studies that I prefer doing this research, it is not wasting time discrediting peoples belief systems or overextending itself to make a “groundbreaking” philosophical point, just outlining the knowledge with a sense of logic, again based on known facts.

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html

After reading that, consider my point that the first symbol used to designate all of Christianity was a fish. Is it STILL a stretch? Goodbye bull, hello fish. You have to put the cultural parallels together to understand the symbolism, outside of the written worlds of the bible.

I’m not saying it’s conclusive, (as you are to the contrary) Unfortunately for my case, I don’t have a book that I can say is the undisputed truth, end of argument. but I am saying that these elements were popular religious archetypes at the time.

Here is another interesting link that discusses early Rome and the work being done to eradicate the Mithraic cult to instill conformity:

http://www.mithraism.erudition.net/append/passage2.htm

These above excerpts are from real, physical documents.

Here is another one that dwells on the archaeological evidence, again, no religious hypothesis, just what is known:

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/mithras/text.htm

Here is one from a religous standpoint that discredits a relationship. It downplays the predecession of Mithraism to Christianity and highlights the information available after Christianities advent. However, there IS enough factual evidence from the times predating Christianity to make the case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

When you read enough of these papers, you begin to come to a few simple conclusions.

-Mithraism contained a lot of astrological (zodiac) beliefs.

-Mithraism preceded Christianity and was popular in that same part of the world at that time.

-Mithraism did, in fact, contain many parallels to the Christian doctrine.

I also recommend reading about Constantine, and the influence of Roman culture on the western world:

Here are a few quick links:


A “pro- Christian” link
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b2constantine.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin ... Page1.html

If interested, please look at more sources.

Back to the thread topic: Zeitgeist: the movie.

After researching much of this info it is clear that they have indeed done a rag-tag job of assembling this information. Each segment could have taken hours to discuss and much of the information is reported as undisputed fact. For example, Lothar and I debated the star alignment of Orion’s belt and the bright star Sirius – the movie also claimed that the information was taken from the temple of Luxor. Well, which one was it?

The fact is, the authors of the bible had numerous sources available to them to derive their stories, more than I had imagined.
For example: That particular star alignment could have been from 7000BCE, a tale was born and carried through time. Who knows? I chose to try it out at the time of the writing of Matthew to illustrate a point. Even Christians debate the birth time of Jesus.

All we can do is look at the historical facts from those times, and I am overwhelmed at the amount of information that indicates the bible is a derivative works, and was politically upheld by the Roman Empire.

Evidence to the contrary only seems to be available from religiously based sites that would obviously benefit from downplaying this information. Non-objective to say the least.

of Mithraism, and parallels ...
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html , from
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

Heh. Tektonics is great. I was just about to post that.

I have read this before in my research on this topic. It’s interesting to note the Tektonic information used is cited from the same author that I linked above, David Ulansey. He genuinely seems to be an objective and enthusiastic scholar on this topic and likely the best source of information we have.

The Christian (tektonics) argument is attempting to place the advent of the Mithra cult after the advent of Christianity, by stating that the original research done by Franz Cumont is incorrect, and that the Persian Mithra and the Roman Mithra are two different cults. However, the argument doesn’t state the Roman version of Mithra still predates the writing of the New Testament by almost two centuries.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my research tells me that a gap of 175 years separates the alleged time of Jesus from the earliest surviving copies of the gospels. There is only just over thirty papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament, which can be dated before the 4th century. Moreover, each copy has its own oddities and mistakes. No two are completely alike.

From dating artifacts, it is known that Mithraism began in Rome in 68 BCE.

Something else about their argument is not quite right. They are going about their merry business degrading the author of “The Christ Conspiracy” for her comments about knowledge of precession before the time of Hipparchus, and how that doesn’t jibe with Ulanses theory that Mithraism is based on Hipparchus’ discovery.

Ulansey never states that phenomenon went unnoticed, just that Hipparchus had the math together to ascertain an earthly wobble. Intersting to note, however, that they are using an argument by a researcher claiming that the religions of the time are based on precession.

Again, I think it’s safe to say that the knowledge of shifting constellations was evident when the ancient Egyptians noticed the star alignment of their pyramids was shifting, or when the builders of the henges noticed the same things.

Ulansey isn’t hesitant to point out the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism and goes into some detail about the astrological implications as well. He goes on to note that “astrological beliefs permeated Mediterranean religious and intellectual life at the time Mithraism originated”. Remember, this is in the same timeframe that Christianity found its origins.

The tectonics main argument (that Christianity preceded Mithraism) doesn’t necessarily reflect with Ulansey’s claim that the Persian Mithra and the Roman Mithra are two different religions. Those are two different statements.

I have read about four or five Christian based essays now on the subject, and the arguments mirror one another – the tektonic argument is a copy of others I've read and the two that were linked in the above post were copies of one another.

I am just an amateur researcher and history buff. There are lots of sources available and if you read enough perspectives and study a bit of anthropology, you will see the relationship between the numerous religions from these times and earlier.

Tomorrow some person could unearth a cave somewhere and all these theories are flushed down the drain.

Cheers,

John

JohnG wrote:After reading that, consider my point that the first symbol used to designate all of Christianity was a fish. Is it STILL a stretch? Goodbye bull, hello fish. You have to put the cultural parallels together to understand the symbolism, outside of the written worlds of the bible.

To establish a parallel, you have to establish that the Jews considered the bull a special symbol, ABOVE the other sacrifices they made. You will note that bulls were almost always sacrificed in conjunction with rams and lambs. And the "daily" sacrifice, the offering made at the temple every morning and evening, the most frequent offering by far, was a lamb.

You could make a better (but not good) argument that Christ replaced a lamb with a fish than that he replaced a bull with a fish.

Again, I am NOT objecting that paganism has slipped into Christianity. Just that this particular argument won't hold water.

Moving on to the "new" age supposedly replacing the old. There is a further problem here. Why on earth would anyone HIDE one outlawed religion within another outlawed religion? If the founders of Christianity had believed in Mithraisim, why not just admit it? They couldn't have been any MORE persecuted for doing so? Christianity did not become a "safe" religion until after Constantine.

JonhG wrote:I also recommend reading about Constantine, and the influence of Roman culture on the western world

I agree that Constantine brought a lot of paganism into Christianity. My issue is with the time BEFORE Constantine.

JohnG wrote:Evidence to the contrary only seems to be available from religiously based sites that would obviously benefit from downplaying this information. Non-objective to say the least.

The problem here is two-fold. First, you are automatically dismissing the opposition simply because they are the opposition. Second, you are assuming that the sources in favor of this theory are NOT biased.

Kilaren:

The cultural parallels I am referring to are the ones outside of the bible. There is much evidence of ancient jews worshipping the bull (paintings in caves), that was a practice of their neighbors. Many early religions worshipped the bull.

As to how it relates to the bible, the story of Moses' journey up the mountain, to meet with God, is a key story in the book of Exodus. This particular story, I propose, may have been \"decorated\" with the current cultural fascination of the precessional change - or the bull represented other mythologies interest in the astronomical event. The golden calf was revered as a god, a replacement of God's will. Hardly irrelevant. Most non-religious people probably are aware of that story.

My opinion on all this precessional relevance is that it is mildly interesting to the overall point that Christianity, Judaism, as with all religions, are derived from cultural myths. God was made in the image of man, and not the other way around.

Regarding your statement :

\"Again, I am NOT objecting that paganism has slipped into Christianity...\"

As the history of mythology points out, it is Christianity that has slipped into paganism. I only use Mithraism as one example of the many, many mythologies around at that time, and the countless mythologies before that as influences on those particular stories. The influences of other mythologies on the bible are much more than Mithra alone. For example, virgin births are in almost all of the Greek mythologies, and the story of the virgin birth of Jesus is from the Greek Matthew. The differing ancient accounts of the bible stories reflect the archetypes that have been used in cultural mythology for millennia.

The \"Heros Journey\" is a common theme used in the mythologies from almost every culture from every time period. Joseph Campbell (american mythology professor) points out for us the basic elemental story line:

1.Ordinary World - The hero's normal world before the story begins

2.Call to Adventure - The hero is presented with a problem, challenge or adventure

3.Refusal of the Call - The hero refuses the challenge or journey, usually because he's scared

4. Meeting with the Mentor - The hero meets a mentor to gain advice or training for the adventure

5. Crossing the First Threshold - The hero crosses leaves the ordinary world and goes into the special world

6. Tests, Allies, Enemies - The hero faces tests, meets allies, confronts enemies & learn the rules of the Special World.

7. Approach - The hero has hit setbacks during tests & may need to try a new idea

8. Ordeal - The biggest life or death crisis

9. Reward - The hero has survived death, overcomes his fear and now earns the reward

10. The Road Back - The hero must return to the Ordinary World.

11. Resurrection Hero - another test where the hero faces death – he has to use everything he's learned

12. Return with Elixir (or message)

The basic elements of this archetype can be seen in the stories of the Greeks, The hindus, the Buddha story, the story of Moses, the Christ story, The Egyptian stories, and so on...Each story is \"decorated\" with cultural elements by the tellers. Modern storytellers use this formula extensively.

I don't want to downplay the relevance (or impact: negative or positive) of these stories to society, just point out that they are, in fact, stories.

Campbell has received some criticism for his work, but the basic elements of the \"Heroes tale\" are intact in nearly all mythological stories, whether that is his original concept or not isn't the point.

This is just one angle I am taking for the reply to your post regarding the origins of Christianity. I will gladly discuss this further with you if you are into it. We could discuss the Dead Sea Scrolls and other papyrus and the variations of the biblical stories, Greek influence on biblical stories, influences on early Jewish culture, Roman political influence, or many other topics relating to the discussion.

Regarding your statement:

\"The problem here is two-fold. First, you are automatically dismissing the opposition simply because they are the opposition. Second, you are assuming that the sources in favor of this theory are NOT biased.\"

No. I am also citing material that comes not only from religious sources, also from the bible. I am getting most of my dates from religious studies texts. The type of material I am avoiding is the type that is merely making arguments without any historical references and that also implies sites that supports my perspective as well.

There are a lot of bizarre astrology/occult sites and books out there that suggest the bible is derivative of earlier culture, but they add nothing to the argument and embarrass themselves by coming off as pious. The same goes for the Christian based sites such as Tektonic that use humiliation along with a \"patch-work\" hypothesis to make an argument.

My preferred sources are those that are not interested in the \"spiritual\" relevance of the information, but more the historical, sociological, or anthropological relevance. The authors of this information may be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist - I wouldn't know from reading it. Ulansey's article is a perfect example. Joseph Campbell is a spiritual guy. Information on Constantine and Greek mythology is easy to come by without it being used to \"prove any points\". It's merely documented historical information.

I have noticed, however, there are a lot of religious based (not just Christian) sites that exhaust a lot of energy arguing, and arguing the existence of a divine creator.

Sorry for the long delay in responding. I've had an incredibly busy month.

JohnG wrote:The cultural parallels I am referring to are the ones outside of the bible. There is much evidence of ancient jews worshipping the bull (paintings in caves), that was a practice of their neighbors. Many early religions worshipped the bull.

Certainly. There was probably still bull worship going on in Samaria in 30AD.

The problem is that this has little or nothing to do with the religion of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes of Christ's day. For this entire premise to stand, we must assume that:

a: The primary religion of Judea in Christ's Day was based around Bull worship. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

b: The new religion was based primarily and centrally around the symbol of a fish. And it wasn't. The fish is just one of many symbols used for Christ, and it was certainly not the first symbol adopted, it came much later.

I think the obvious failure of these two assumptions is quite adequate to settle the question of whether or not Christianity was not merely a disguised version of Mithraisim. But a third reason is still worth mentioning again.

c: WHY on earth would anyone bother to HIDE Mithraisim, an outlawed religion, inside Christianity, another outlawed religion? What is the logical reason? When you are attempting to hide a religion, you slip it in to an ACCEPTED religion, which Christianity was NOT until Constantine. It was persecuted in Judea AND throughout the Roman empire. What would be the POINT? It's like trying to hide your drug smuggling ring behind a counterfitting scheme. H

Kilarin wrote:a: The primary religion of Judea in Christ's Day was based around Bull worship. It wasn't. Not even remotely.

You're off by 2 ages

Just a correction:
The age of the Taurus (Bull) was pre-Moses.
The dawning of the age of Aries (Ram) corresponded with Moses.
The dawning of the current age of the Pisces (Fish) corresponded with Jesus.
The dawning of the future age of Aquarius (Water Bearer) (most importantly to this discussion) eludes to the age of Pisces/Fish/Jesus ENDING, and whatever that implies.


In the Bible, Ram symbolism is common in Moses's time (and he got angry at Bull symbolism) and Jesus's time introduced Fish symbolism.