Christianity is Sun Worship: Theist Response?

doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Christianity is Sun Worship: Theist Response?

I have seen NUMEROUS sources recently that expose Christianity as nothing more than altered paganistic sun worship.

There are several key videos that make the case. I cannot figure how to embed them, but I welcome any help.

My favorite is very short and to the point. It has no publicized authorship, and appears to be very “underground.” Nonetheless, most of the information is factual and difficult to dispute. It can be found here (26 minutes):
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8461754114455236037&hl=en

Secondly, Reginald Finley interviews a woman who wrote a book about this issue (48 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/v/ELoN3OSY6hA

Finally, the first video I saw on this topic is called “The Naked Truth”, and it lasts for about 2 hours.

Mod: What is it with people breaking our pages with over-sized links? Puzzled
Anyway, fixed it: Click here.

You can watch all of those videos to understand the arguments.

To put it in a nutshell:

1. Jesus is not a deity. He may or may not have been a real person.

2. The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity. This goes beyond Judaism. The bulk can be directly traced to Egyptian religion and worship of the sun god, Horus, who happens to share many important features with Jesus. These features are so identical, the issue cannot be due to coincidence. This is not to say that Horus is the only Pagan god with similar features, but he is one of the most identical to Jesus. Others might be Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or Zoroaster.

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm http://ask.metafilter.com/54488/First-Century-Jesus-References http://www.geocities.com/nephilimnot/horus.html http://englishatheist.org/indexz31.shtml

Armed with a few good search words, your studies may yield better and more abundant sources.

3. All of the story of Jesus is astrology. He dies on a cross. The sun in the winter solstice on December 25 hangs in a constellation known as the crux. Then it is “born” after 3 days of seemingly hanging in the same spot and starts to set in a different place going further North each night. People were so fearful in the winter that the sun would not came back that they celebrated its return, and the end of the continual shortening of days. When it is born, the North star lines up with Orion’s belt, composed of three stars known as the “three kings”. In sum, this is all that the resurrection is. Nothing more. There was no real cross and no real dying savior. All of that mumbo jumbo was a template for other theological ideas, such as sin and salvation, to take root.

4. If Jesus WAS real, then it is highly likely that he was groomed to recycle myths from the past in order to become a tool of social control. In any event, the real or fictional Jesus was a tool of political control when he became historicized. Some scholars, I believe, may claim that Chrsitian gnosticism never intended for Jesus to be a real person and that the rituals and religious concepts of gnosticism were borrowed from other Pagan religions. I believe that the most plausible version is one in which religious gnostics made up the religion truly believing that it was something great, but that there was no real Jesus. Later, people like Paul (who never eyewitnessed Jesus) possibly either mistakenly thought Jesus was historical or concocted the historical Jesus. Being a skeptic, I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories. So once again, I would favor the church fathers mistakenly believing in a historical Jesus after years of the birth of non-historical Jesus Christian gnosticism.

How do Christians respond to the claim that Christianity is sun worship?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Borrwing pagan holidays and

Borrwing pagan holidays and practices doesn't necessitate borrowing pagan beliefs. So, my response is "Not at all. Christianity is the worship of some Jew and his daddy."


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Borrwing pagan holidays and practices doesn't necessitate borrowing pagan beliefs.  

True, but it could certainly be one of the original motivations behind the belief... beliefs transmute over time.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
<quote=losingstreak06>Borrwi

losingstreak06 wrote:
Borrwing pagan holidays and practices doesn't necessitate borrowing pagan beliefs. So, my response is "Not at all. Christianity is the worship of some Jew and his daddy."

I beg to differ. I think Christians wrongly assume that missionaries managed to "fit" native pagan holidays and practices into Christianity. We often think that missionaries simply steamrolled over other holidays and practices and think that there was no prior relationship.

What I'm claiming is that there is a common ancestor sun-worship religion, ie Egyptian religion, and that most other pagan religions stemmed from that. Then, you have Christianity coming on the scene claiming to be something different, but really being just another mutation of the same old sh*t. Same sh*t, different deity.

Why was it so easy to steamroll belief in Jesus over other pagan religions? Because there wasn't much difference -- they all share the same common ancestor religions. It's like two sons duking it out for their father's inheritance. One son wins and the other loses. The winner then declares that he was the father all along.

Doesn't make any sense? Precisely. Christianity and most Pagan religions are brother religions with a common father religion. It makes no sense, then, to assume that Christianity was the origin; it was simply the brother religion that won the war of popularity.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
doctoro

doctoro wrote:

losingstreak06 wrote:
What I'm claiming is that there is a common ancestor sun-worship religion, ie Egyptian religion, and that most other pagan religions stemmed from that. Then, you have Christianity coming on the scene claiming to be something different, but really being just another mutation of the same old sh*t. Same sh*t, different deity.

And humans are just another mutation of the same old ape DNA. But that doesn't make us amoebas, despite the fact that we  evolved from them. Fact of the matter is, you can feel free to call a spade a spade, but after several thousand years of cultural sculpting, religions change. And (bet you didn't see this one coming) after a while, those changes become big enough that religions  that were once closely related become strikingly different.

Quote:
Why was it so easy to steamroll belief in Jesus over other pagan religions?

Strafio tried to explain it to me. He mentioned the philosophies of Plato becoming popular, making and "omni-god" more appealling than pagan gods.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
For anyone interested in

For anyone interested in this topic I recommend:

Jesus Christ sun of god - By David Fideler

Fideler explores christian symbolism and how it so closely resembles ancient Pagan cosmology.  It's a very interesting read.  One of the many topics he discusses is the biblical stories of the feeding of the five thousand and jesus catching fish w/ his disciples.  Fideler exposes these stories as Geometry parables stolen from Pythagoras (over five centuries earlier).  

 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Sun-David-Fideler/dp/0835606961

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
No it isn't. It borrows

No it isn't. It borrows heavily but the premise is quite, quite different.

Plus the festival itself is nothing to do with the feast of Mithra or Saturnalia before anyone starts.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
LOL.. yeah i watched that

LOL.. yeah i watched that video the other day.  i would have to say that honestly it took me out of commission for a while.  i was at a loss for words. (i think it was the music)

 it was funny because the previous night i had prayed and asked God a bunch of questions and ended the prayer asking Him to give me strength and encouragement.  then the next morning i saw that video and i actually became closer than i ever have into doubting.

after some serious conversation with my Imagery Friend i did some research on the subject and fell into a deeper enlightenment.  it suddenly became clear.

 i only wish i could share the answers with you guys in a positive way but frankly you would probably mistaken me for a loon. that being said i have no "evidence" or proof either way and could ultimately sum the video up as propaganda.

i would say that astrology, history, and prophecy had a very interesting effect on the subject.  maybe if you look down a similar path you would find the answers.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Ok, let me get this

Ok, let me get this straight. Somehow some Jewish guys, who probably couldn't read egyptian (or hebrew since they all seem to like quoting the septuigant [I know I mispelled it] all the time) somehow manages to learn about the Egyptian sun god and other religions, while this similarity is missed by the majority of other Jews. They then manage to make up this Jesus guy and say that he did all these things.

Now Jews believe Christianity is a heresy, but they never thought it would be a good idea to claim Jesus didn't exist and that actualy he is based on an Egyptian Sun god?  Even worse, why would any Jew follow someone who is based on an Egyptian Sun god or even choose to base Jesus on a sun god?


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote: LOL.. yeah

sapphen wrote:

LOL.. yeah i watched that video the other day. i would have to say that honestly it took me out of commission for a while. i was at a loss for words. (i think it was the music)

it was funny because the previous night i had prayed and asked God a bunch of questions and ended the prayer asking Him to give me strength and encouragement. then the next morning i saw that video and i actually became closer than i ever have into doubting.

after some serious conversation with my Imagery Friend i did some research on the subject and fell into a deeper enlightenment. it suddenly became clear.

i only wish i could share the answers with you guys in a positive way but frankly you would probably mistaken me for a loon. that being said i have no "evidence" or proof either way and could ultimately sum the video up as propaganda.

i would say that astrology, history, and prophecy had a very interesting effect on the subject. maybe if you look down a similar path you would find the answers.

 I must say that your subjective experiences are unconvincing, especially since you can't verbalize what persuaded you to maintain your Christian belief.  

But, friend, I have had what I believed to be supernatural experiences as well.  After careful research and thought about these experiences, I realized that the human mind is highly subject to delusion.

The problem with supernatural "feelings" or conversations with spirit beings is that there are numerous people who have experiences that are contradictory to other persons' experiences.  Supernatural experiences are an extremely unreliable means of acquiring knowledge.  Most people who have these experiences must either be in an altered physiological or mental state to even have the experiences, which casts serious doubt on whether they are real or simply misfirings in the brain.

If a person were walking his dog one day and saw an angel descend from heaven, that would be a bit more spectacular.  Praying for hours in a mental stupor is quite another matter.

 I respect you, and I respect these experiences you believe you're having.  But, friend, I urge you to ask yourself the question, "Are my experiences really reliable?"

So in sum, I have been down the same path, brother, and I simply put no stock in supernatural experiences and feelings.  I would if there were sightings by numerous people with video or audio recording of such events, but these things have never materialized.

I trust physical evidence and reason.  I find no physical evidence for the supernatural, and I don't find the existence of supernatural things to be reasonable either. 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Ok,

simple theist wrote:

Ok, let me get this straight. Somehow some Jewish guys, who probably couldn't read egyptian (or hebrew since they all seem to like quoting the septuigant [I know I mispelled it] all the time) somehow manages to learn about the Egyptian sun god and other religions, while this similarity is missed by the majority of other Jews.

Not "somehow," SimpleTheist.  This way: Egyptians worship the son of the god (Horus) represented by the sun disk.  Alexander the Great conquers Egypt and has himself named the living sun god, son of god. Through Alexander, the tradition of crowning the king as the sun of the (sun) god, it moves into the Greek, then the Roman traditon when the Romans adopt Greek culture.  Julius Caesaer, when he invaded Egypt, has himself crowned the son of god.  His son, Augustus Caesar, who is the ruler of the Roman Empire (including Palestine) seriously perpetuates the tradition as a way of holding power, has himself crowned the son of god--as does every Roman imperial emperor after him until Constantine.

It was already a centuries-old tradition that was all around the people of JC's time. There are shrines to the emperor Augustus, the living sun god, all over Jerusalem at the time that Jesus and the apostles are there.  There's a huge controversy among the Jews--and this is one of the reasons for their rebellions--over how to deal with Roman laws that dictated people should give tribute to the Imperial cult shrine (i.e. sacrifice to graven images).

 

simple theist wrote:
They then manage to make up this Jesus guy and say that he did all these things.

That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the Christian reading of the NT.  When Jesus agrees that he's the son of god, what he's literally saying in the connotaions of the time is that he's taking the Roman Emperor's place as the living sun god.   A Jewish church reformer would probably not ever say anything like this: it must be something added by the Greeks who were the majority of the early Christian church.  

simple theist wrote:
Now Jews believe Christianity is a heresy, but they never thought it would be a good idea to claim Jesus didn't exist and that actualy he is based on an Egyptian Sun god? Even worse, why would any Jew follow someone who is based on an Egyptian Sun god or even choose to base Jesus on a sun god?

Most of the early Christians were Greeks, not Jews.  They already had their long tradition of sun worship, dating back to Appollo originally (who, as you recall, is the son of Zeus/god), but incorporating the Egyptian "son of god" stuff via Alexander.  So calling Jesus the "son of god" would make sense to them as meaning that he was a god incarnate.

 I dunno if this is in the videos and documents linked to because I haven't checked them out yet.  But I seriously thought that this idea was a done deal that most reasonable people accepted--the Christian version of JC is the pagan sun god. 

I mean, come on.  The bible itself clearly shows he was born in the spring, not at the winter solstice.  That should be some kind of clue.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
where there no more major

where there no more major similar stories after Jesus was born.  i would pose to say that they were only predictions of His coming.  if one is chirstian, then they also believe in an evil side.  not that i am saying "da devil did it", but i am lead to believe that other spirits live on the earth that may have had a physical form or spiritual impact on people.  it could have been a way for God to prepare the way for His coming, who knows, but funny that those stories are in the shadow of the Lord Jesus.

as far as astrology goes it believes that mankind entered into the age of pisces, at the date of Jesus's birth.  before then we where in the age of aries.  it would not make since to say "he was a fisherman", the fish symbol before the actual age has occurred.

i feel that astrology may have been overlooked by christians and it could be a symbolic of God, the whole universe could be.  But i would have to ask the question if God is the "sun" and the disciples are the different signs, where is the evil at? astrology lacks the opposition.

the fact that Jesus was born and said He was real (many that claim the same thing), and the evidence that the age of pisces would lead to spiritual awareness... and during those 2000 years we did explore our spiritual sides.  likewise the age of aquarius is among us, and that is the age that we will question religion/domga and seek for unity.

just because the idea has been around before Jesus only reassures that He is real for me. people where prediciting His coming for a while, whose to say they did not borrow the idea from word of mouth.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote: the fact

sapphen wrote:

the fact that Jesus was born and said He was real (many that claim the same thing), and the evidence that the age of pisces would lead to spiritual awareness... and during those 2000 years we did explore our spiritual sides. likewise the age of aquarius is among us, and that is the age that we will question religion/domga and seek for unity.

just because the idea has been around before Jesus only reassures that He is real for me. people where prediciting His coming for a while, whose to say they did not borrow the idea from word of mouth.

Sapphen, you're probably already familiar with the rhetorical/logical term Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
no, i was not familiar with

no, i was not familiar with the term but with the concept.  thank you for the link, almost any wikipedia link is good for the mind.  i am having a little difficultly drawing the connection to what i said but i can vaguely see where you are coming from.

i do undestand that i am not providing a logical agruement, only providing a "response".  maybe instead of an answer, i should have gave what i gained from the subject.

i came to the consideration that God / Jesus goes deeper than what i first thought.  there maybe some truth in astrology.  like the moon guides the tides, it "could be" possible that the planets effect our moods.  i feel that people are going from a spiritual awareness to an intelligent atonement.

i did not mean to say that i had a "supernatural" experience. my computer did not set afire and give me wisdom. to be honest, my mind thinks very abstractly and i see more than i can say.  it takes some time and questioning on my part to interpret the insight into words.  thank you for your patience in this matter while i bumble out some ideas.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The worshipors of the

The worshipors of the Abrahamic three, most never have the oportunity to ponder, and those that do end up becoming apologists committing mind gymnastics to prop up their myth.

All one has to do to know the absurdity of these claims is consider a few things. If one is intrested in understanding where the skeptic is comming from.

1. Is this really real, or do I merely want it to be real?

2. Which in really is more realistic?

  A. Apollo really pulled the sun across the sky with a chariot?

     Or

   |B. Someone made up that story because they liked the atributes of the hero they made up?

If it sounds like fiction it is.

Arguing over history, or allegid real places or people dodges the outragious claims in all holy books. If a Hindu for example, quotes a historical figure from their past as believing in Vishnu, does that make a multiple armed deity real? Or could it simply mean that that famous person baught a myth like modern people do today.

Fictional books can and do contain real people and places and events as a backdrop to the story itself but in no way is it real.

Superman and Spiderman use NY City as a backdrop. But no sane person in their right mind believes that those are actuall beings other than actors on film with video trickery.

So how would ancient people be any less immune to human behaivor? How would they be immune to making up fiction and calling it religion? If it stands to reason that the Eygptian gods died as a result of humans discarding old fiction, why do you think you are immune to fall into the same trap?

Hocus pocus is not real and neither are spirits or gosts or ouiji boards. If Jefferson was wise enough to class the birth and death of the alleged Jesus as being in the same class as Minervia being born out of the brain of Jupiter, why aren't you as brave as he was in daring to ask those same hard questions about your own god(s).

Mind you this post is not aimed at one particular person. Just food for thought. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: simple

Textom wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Ok, let me get this straight. Somehow some Jewish guys, who probably couldn't read egyptian (or hebrew since they all seem to like quoting the septuigant [I know I mispelled it] all the time) somehow manages to learn about the Egyptian sun god and other religions, while this similarity is missed by the majority of other Jews.

Not "somehow," SimpleTheist. This way: Egyptians worship the son of the god (Horus) represented by the sun disk. Alexander the Great conquers Egypt and has himself named the living sun god, son of god. Through Alexander, the tradition of crowning the king as the sun of the (sun) god, it moves into the Greek, then the Roman traditon when the Romans adopt Greek culture. Julius Caesaer, when he invaded Egypt, has himself crowned the son of god. His son, Augustus Caesar, who is the ruler of the Roman Empire (including Palestine) seriously perpetuates the tradition as a way of holding power, has himself crowned the son of god--as does every Roman imperial emperor after him until Constantine.

It was already a centuries-old tradition that was all around the people of JC's time. There are shrines to the emperor Augustus, the living sun god, all over Jerusalem at the time that Jesus and the apostles are there. There's a huge controversy among the Jews--and this is one of the reasons for their rebellions--over how to deal with Roman laws that dictated people should give tribute to the Imperial cult shrine (i.e. sacrifice to graven images).

 The main objection here is that the Jews never claimed this was the case. Show me one Jewish source that claims this is where the idea came from. Seriously If Christianity is such an insult to Jews, why don't they make this claim?

Quote:
 

simple theist wrote:
They then manage to make up this Jesus guy and say that he did all these things.

That's one of the things that doesn't make sense in the Christian reading of the NT. When Jesus agrees that he's the son of god, what he's literally saying in the connotaions of the time is that he's taking the Roman Emperor's place as the living sun god. A Jewish church reformer would probably not ever say anything like this: it must be something added by the Greeks who were the majority of the early Christian church.

Jesus refers to himself mostlly as "the son of man" (meaning servant of man) not "the son of God". In Hebrew "son of God" ment "servant of God" Since the New Testament was written by Jews, it makes more since to go with the Hebrew explanation for the term instead of the Greek explanation.

 

Quote:
 

simple theist wrote:
Now Jews believe Christianity is a heresy, but they never thought it would be a good idea to claim Jesus didn't exist and that actualy he is based on an Egyptian Sun god? Even worse, why would any Jew follow someone who is based on an Egyptian Sun god or even choose to base Jesus on a sun god?

Most of the early Christians were Greeks, not Jews. They already had their long tradition of sun worship, dating back to Appollo originally (who, as you recall, is the son of Zeus/god), but incorporating the Egyptian "son of god" stuff via Alexander. So calling Jesus the "son of god" would make sense to them as meaning that he was a god incarnate.

I dunno if this is in the videos and documents linked to because I haven't checked them out yet. But I seriously thought that this idea was a done deal that most reasonable people accepted--the Christian version of JC is the pagan sun god.

I mean, come on. The bible itself clearly shows he was born in the spring, not at the winter solstice. That should be some kind of clue.

First, early Christians didn't care when Jesus was born. His death was the most important event. The Dec. 25th date was made popular in 354 by Pope Liberius. It is well known that thsi date was chosen because of the pagan feast to the sun god to get people to focus on Christ rather then the Roman sun god. The Eastern chuch celebrated the Birth of Jesus on Jan. 6th until it later adopted the Dec 25th date, though some still keep the Jan. 6th date. Also since some still use the jullian calender, the dates still don't occor on Dec. 25 occruding to our calender.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
. wrote:

. wrote:
Early Christians didn't care when Jesus was born. His death was the most important event. The Dec. 25th date was made popular in 354 by Pope Liberius. It is well known that thsi date was chosen because of the pagan feast to the sun god to get people to focus on Christ rather then the Roman sun god. The Eastern chuch celebrated the Birth of Jesus on Jan. 6th until it later adopted the Dec 25th date, though some still keep the Jan. 6th date. Also since some still use the jullian calender, the dates still don't occor on Dec. 25 occruding to our calender.

Hey, I'll buy that.

BUT. 3 days before resurrection? The cross? Sirius? The three kings?

"On the third day he arose": The sun hangs in the same spot for three days during the winter solstice before changing its path in the sky.

"The cross / crucifixion": The sun hangs on or near a constellation called the "crux" shaped like a cross during the winter solstice.

Sirius and the Three Kings: The three kings are in Orion's belt and line up with Sirius during the winter solstice.


December 25th, I buy that the choosing of that date for Christmas was manufactured. What about the other astrological references?


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
http://www.truthbeknown.com/

http://www.truthbeknown.com/luxor.html 

This picture depicts Thoth anouncing to a virgin that she would become pregnant with Horus.

 

 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: .

doctoro wrote:

. wrote:
Early Christians didn't care when Jesus was born. His death was the most important event. The Dec. 25th date was made popular in 354 by Pope Liberius. It is well known that thsi date was chosen because of the pagan feast to the sun god to get people to focus on Christ rather then the Roman sun god. The Eastern chuch celebrated the Birth of Jesus on Jan. 6th until it later adopted the Dec 25th date, though some still keep the Jan. 6th date. Also since some still use the jullian calender, the dates still don't occor on Dec. 25 occruding to our calender.

Hey, I'll buy that.

BUT. 3 days before resurrection? The cross? Sirius? The three kings?

"On the third day he arose": The sun hangs in the same spot for three days during the winter solstice before changing its path in the sky.

"The cross / crucifixion": The sun hangs on or near a constellation called the "crux" shaped like a cross during the winter solstice.

Sirius and the Three Kings: The three kings are in Orion's belt and line up with Sirius during the winter solstice.


December 25th, I buy that the choosing of that date for Christmas was manufactured. What about the other astrological references?

  They only make since if you assume Jesus was born anywhere near the winter solstice. The writers of the New Testament never would have thought ayone would think Jesus was born on the winter solstice.  Also one has to wonder if they were aware of these astrological signs. Jesus died in March/April and most people would say he was born somewhere around this time as well.

So my question to you is why would they use events occuring on the winter solstice if no part of the new testament occurs on that event? 


bzeurunkl
Theist
bzeurunkl's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
doctoro wrote: 1. Jesus is

doctoro wrote:
1. Jesus is not a deity. He may or may not have been a real person.

Blah, blah, blah.  He said, she said...

 

doctoro wrote:
2. The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of "premonitions?"  Ever seen a movie where something that was "coming" was portended by some kind of sign?  Like the "devils mountain" in Close Encounters, or just pick about any sci-fi (Solaris) or horror flick that you'd care to mention (like HellRaiser).

We don't seem to question why evil has a foreshadowing.

doctoro wrote:
3. All of the story of Jesus is astrology. He dies on a cross. The sun in the winter solstice on December 25 hangs in a constellation known as the crux.

Did you ever notice how most of those things were named or contrived after the year 1 A.D.?  For instance, the "crux" is called the "crux" because it resembles a cross - not because a cross resembles a star constellation.  The Southern Cross wasn't called that until much later than Jesus' time.

Questions... yes....


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
this is an atheist only

this is an atheist only post about the video. i think they had some good insight on it as well that could help add to the discussion.

 

Theists, out of respect please do not post in this forum

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What about "Amen" being a

What about "Amen" being a name of the Egyptian sun god?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Amen" stems from "Amun" as

"Amen" stems from "Amun" as in "Amun Ra"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
bzeurunkl wrote: doctoro

bzeurunkl wrote:

doctoro wrote:
1. Jesus is not a deity. He may or may not have been a real person.

Blah, blah, blah. He said, she said...

doctoro wrote:
2. The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of "premonitions?" Ever seen a movie where something that was "coming" was portended by some kind of sign? Like the "devils mountain" in Close Encounters, or just pick about any sci-fi (Solaris) or horror flick that you'd care to mention (like HellRaiser).

We don't seem to question why evil has a foreshadowing.

doctoro wrote:
3. All of the story of Jesus is astrology. He dies on a cross. The sun in the winter solstice on December 25 hangs in a constellation known as the crux.

Did you ever notice how most of those things were named or contrived after the year 1 A.D.? For instance, the "crux" is called the "crux" because it resembles a cross - not because a cross resembles a star constellation. The Southern Cross wasn't called that until much later than Jesus' time.

Questions... yes....

The Romans never crucified anyone before Jesus, eh? No one knew what a cross looked like till then?

You're a funny guy. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
This thread is bizarre.

This thread is bizarre. Basically it's speculation about how a speculative belief system came about.


 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: This

wavefreak wrote:

This thread is bizarre. Basically it's speculation about how a speculative belief system came about.


 

We've done our homework and you calling this "speculation" shows your ignorance.

"Speculation" is claiming that a being with no body managed to get a girl pregnant. That is not only speculation, that is absurd.

You love to think, just like any other religion that your deity is the greatist thing since sliced bread, and the reality if you are brave enough to face it, is that your myth is just another built from prior myth.

"My soda can is red so therefor it was the first beverage".

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

"I am the first because my details are different" tottally ignores mundain human non-magical behaivor.

Humans are capable of compitition. They compete in every aspect of life. They compet for the affection of a mate. They compete with their syblings. They compet in sports and business. So what makes you think religion is immune to competition?

People also make up fiction and believe it as fact. Some people believe that if you put a triangle on a board with letters you can talk to the dead. Some people believe in vampires. Some people believe that multiple armed god(s) exist.

So you want to think you are not capable of buying a lie and believing it as fact? Somehow you are special out of all the 6 billion people and others believe in fiction but you believe in fact? Somehow magically you are protected from human behaivor.

It never occurs to you that you baught something merely because you like the idea of it. It never occurs to you that myths dont exist in a vaccum and eventually give way to newer myth. It never occurs to you that you have baught a myth.

If you want to know why it is not speculation DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK AND COMPAIR.

You dont have to blindly believe us, but dont take some apologists word for it either. Do it on your own without our help or that of any holy person. Compair all the prior polytheism from the Egyptians to the Sumerians to the Hindus to the zoroastrians to the Cannanites. 

You DONT have to believe us. Just do your own homework without taking our word or their word for it. 

I dont think you even study your own book to any length. I just think you dismiss us because you fear looking at your own claims. Lose that fear and maybe you'll learn something.

But if the best you can come up with is "speculation" we cant help you understand if you dont want help. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: "Amen" stems

Brian37 wrote:
"Amen" stems from "Amun" as in "Amun Ra"

And they would say Amun at the end of praying to him as well I believe (o rly?). 


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:

First, early Christians didn't care when Jesus was born. His death was the most important event. The Dec. 25th date was made popular in 354 by Pope Liberius. It is well known that thsi date was chosen because of the pagan feast to the sun god to get people to focus on Christ rather then the Roman sun god. The Eastern chuch celebrated the Birth of Jesus on Jan. 6th until it later adopted the Dec 25th date, though some still keep the Jan. 6th date. Also since some still use the jullian calender, the dates still don't occor on Dec. 25 occruding to our calender.

January 6th was also the traditional date where Dionysus reportedly changed water into wine at a wedding feast (sound familiar?) at least five centuries prior to the jesus myth.  Just so you have yet one more pagan/christian reference to try and rationalize. 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Hate to

Brian37 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

 

 

Not my hero worship. Not my religion.  


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
http://www.religioustoleranc

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

 

interesting site showing the similarities between Horus and Jesus. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

 

Not my hero worship. Not my religion.

You may have brought this up before (if so, give me a link or PM me) but, what is your religion again? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: wavefreak

jcgadfly wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

 

Not my hero worship. Not my religion.

You may have brought this up before (if so, give me a link or PM me) but, what is your religion again?

I can't search the threads for my previous answer. 

  • I have no problem with evolution
  • I think terms like supernatural are meaningless
  • Omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolence are strange ideas that I don't find useful
  • I don't believe that logic can fully describe reality. It's damned good at what it can do but I think it has fundamental limits.
I could go on but it's hard without some context. Questions work better.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: jcgadfly

wavefreak wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

 

Not my hero worship. Not my religion.

You may have brought this up before (if so, give me a link or PM me) but, what is your religion again?

I can't search the threads for my previous answer.

  • I have no problem with evolution
  • I think terms like supernatural are meaningless
  • Omniscience, omnipotent, omnibenevolence are strange ideas that I don't find useful
  • I don't believe that logic can fully describe reality. It's damned good at what it can do but I think it has fundamental limits.

I could go on but it's hard without some context. Questions work better.

Thanks - I'll come up with a few later 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

 

Not my hero worship. Not my religion.

Ok, so what are you? What label do you hold?And what makes you think I wont question your specific claim of deity in any case?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: wavefreak

Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble hero worship has been around long before the Abrahamic religions. "First person" "creation" "flood" "justice" "chosen people" are motifs much older than your religion.

 

Not my hero worship. Not my religion.

Ok, so what are you? What label do you hold?And what makes you think I wont question your specific claim of deity in any case?

 

See my post above.  I would expect you to question me.  But I'm a slippery devil. Christians think I'm demonic.


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Wow, can anyone dispute any

Wow, can anyone dispute any of the "evidence" presented in the first video?
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8461754114455236037&hl=en


mmonte4
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I noticed there has been no

I noticed there has been no response.  Others have been drilling me for this video because they say Horus was never said to be born on Dec. 25 - some of the "facts" presented in the video are FALSE


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I usually get on here when

I usually get on here when everyone is asleep (becuase I'm doing other things during the day) so I don't listen to videos when they are posted. If you would be kind enough to post a summary of the points made in the video, I will attempt to resond to them.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mmonte4 wrote:

mmonte4 wrote:
I noticed there has been no response. Others have been drilling me for this video because they say Horus was never said to be born on Dec. 25 - some of the "facts" presented in the video are FALSE

Mythra and Atlas worshipors celibrated their birthdays on Dec 25th. I have not heard this about Horus, although it would not suprise me.

Again if you look at human nature combined with the fact that religions do not exist in a vaccuum, you can see how future sects and other religions adapt prior motifs, concepts and dates.

Isis for example was known throughout Europe by many names and just like you have Baptists and Catholics in Christianity, her worshipors did so just as diversly as Christians worship Jesus. It is nothing but humans competing for club members through the competitive sale of myth.

Dec 25th as a date as a whole coincides with the winter solstice time of year and many polythiesticl cultures in the polythistic era had deities that were worshiped on or arround that date. These pagan religions conqured each other or mixed with others and forced their deties on each other or as a political action incorperated local cultures rituals to incice worship of endorced by the power ruling class.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, Winter Solstice is

Yeah, Winter Solstice is the key thing.

 If you live outside and are a farmer, you actually see the sun track across the sky through the year.  The place where it stops in the winter and starts back the other way is the Winter solstice--ancient people all knew this.

Winter solstice is a key date for agricultural people because it means the winter is halfway over, so you can figure out if your food will last and start looking forward to spring.  The days stop getting shorter and start getting longer, so it's associated with the birth of the sun.

The fact that it's the 25th rather than the 21st isn't relevant.  The solstice does not always fall exactly on the 21st, and by the time the Roman calendar (which identifies the 25th as the birth of Mithras/Apollo) was instituted, sun worship had moved away from its purely agricultural roots and was not based as purely on the movements of the sun anymore.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Eh... I think one needs to

Eh... I think one needs to be careful in saying that Christmas 'stole' the rites of other festivals as there were several overlapping festivals in place around the time Christmas became a recognised feast all of which borrowed heavily from each other.

The date of the festival may therefore be close or, indeed, identical to some of those other festivals but it doesn't follow that it surplanted them unless, of course, there were specific edicts put in place by the churches or rulers to make it so. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I

simple theist wrote:
I usually get on here when everyone is asleep (becuase I'm doing other things during the day) so I don't listen to videos when they are posted. If you would be kind enough to post a summary of the points made in the video, I will attempt to resond to them.

Now how are you going to rationalize all the facts in this video if you spend all your time rationalizing why you haven't even watched it ?

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I see little need to refute

I see little need to refute anything. So far all I've read is that Christianity is Sun worship because Jesus was born on Dec. 25th.

Problem #1: Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th, but sometime in March/April.

Problem #2: It was because of all these Pagan gods being celebrated on Dec. 25th that the Catholic Church decided to celerate Jesus' birth on this day.

 

Also I'll try to watch the video tomorrow during the day. I'll leave myself a note. However, if the video makes the same pointless claims that this thread has so far made, I will become more certain that the Flying spegetti monster is more likely to exist then anything claimed by an atheist is true.


doctoro
doctoro's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: I see

simple theist wrote:

I see little need to refute anything. So far all I've read is that Christianity is Sun worship because Jesus was born on Dec. 25th.

Problem #1: Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th, but sometime in March/April.

Problem #2: It was because of all these Pagan gods being celebrated on Dec. 25th that the Catholic Church decided to celerate Jesus' birth on this day.

 

Also I'll try to watch the video tomorrow during the day. I'll leave myself a note. However, if the video makes the same pointless claims that this thread has so far made, I will become more certain that the Flying spegetti monster is more likely to exist then anything claimed by an atheist is true.

 The point about birth on december 25th is a minor point in the overall argument.

I think a far more important similarity lies in "rising on the third day".  Why did Jesus rise on the third day?  What is the signficance?  Why did God choose 3 days?  I think a good explanation is that the "3 days" period of time is borrowed from the fact that the sun stays in one place in the sky for 3 days before migrating back the other way.

What's the point of refuting the case if you don't watch the video?  It's only 26 minutes long.   I can let it slide if you have a crappy connection, but seriously, that's not a long period of time.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Check out

Check out http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

I watched the first five min. of the video, however after searching the web for Horus, I was unable to find anything to support what the video said about him. (Unless I go to a specific website that is comparing Jesus and Horus - but that isn't really support) If I can't find support for the video's claims of Horus. 

 All I can say about the video right now is that it apparenlty lies a lot since I can't find anything that makes the same claims as it.


Chretien
Theist
Chretien's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
 It's very easy to refute

 It's very easy to refute the Sun worship theory simply by pointing out that Christians have never worhipped the Sun. If you disagree, please cite me one reference showing Christians worshipping the Sun.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” -- George Washington


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Check

simple theist wrote:

Check out http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

I watched the first five min. of the video, however after searching the web for Horus, I was unable to find anything to support what the video said about him. (Unless I go to a specific website that is comparing Jesus and Horus - but that isn't really support) If I can't find support for the video's claims of Horus. 

 All I can say about the video right now is that it apparenlty lies a lot since I can't find anything that makes the same claims as it.

First, I'm not an expert on Egyptian mythology. However, because there is no "bible of Horus" there are many different mythologies of Horus.

The Pharaoh was the earthly embodiment of Horus, while they were also followers of Ra (also a Sun God). Horus and Ra were associated together, but because Egyptian worship was more of a tribal religion, there was a lot of conflict bringing the stories between them together. This resulted in about half a dozen different versions of Horus, most of which can be seperated into two groups.

If he is said to be the son of Isis, he's in the Osirian group. If not, he's a solar deity. This is where you go from someone who can read a simple Wikipedia article to needing an expert in Kemetic Mythology and I run out of steam.

There are so many Gods who all have different myths, conflicting myths, extra names or have been merged into different Gods it's unbelievable. You can read some of the translated version of the Book of the Dead to see some of the points referenced in the movie.

 http://www.earth-history.com/Egypt/Bodead/bodead-06-eternal-life.htm

Hopefully someone on the site knows more about Kemetic Mythology than me and can point out some better sources.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Chretien wrote: It's very

Chretien wrote:
It's very easy to refute the Sun worship theory simply by pointing out that Christians have never worhipped the Sun. If you disagree, please cite me one reference showing Christians worshipping the Sun.

 

wow, you've just summed up your intelligence right there. I vote the quoted post should be labelled under "theists say the stupidest things" (not generallising theists ofcourse, some are capable of well thought out arguments) 


Chretien
Theist
Chretien's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
SamSexton wrote: wow,

SamSexton wrote:

wow, you've just summed up your intelligence right there. I vote the quoted post should be labelled under "theists say the stupidest things" (not generallising theists ofcourse, some are capable of well thought out arguments) 

 

Uusually when people engage in character assasination it means they have no answers. Please show me one Christian in antiquity or modern times who worshiped the Sun. Please show me one ancient Christian creed that endordsed Sun worship. Please show me one passage from the New Testament endorsing Sun worship. You people make up such silly arguments that would be refuted if you simply thought them through.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” -- George Washington


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Chretien wrote: SamSexton

Chretien wrote:
SamSexton wrote:

wow, you've just summed up your intelligence right there. I vote the quoted post should be labelled under "theists say the stupidest things" (not generallising theists ofcourse, some are capable of well thought out arguments) 

Uusually when people engage in character assasination it means they have no answers. Please show me one Christian in antiquity or modern times who worshiped the Sun. Please show me one ancient Christian creed that endordsed Sun worship. Please show me one passage from the New Testament endorsing Sun worship. You people make up such silly arguments that would be refuted if you simply thought them through.

Well, if you actually watched the video, any passage that has "Jesus" in it would be Sun worship.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


Chretien
Theist
Chretien's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
 Alot of people don't know

 Alot of people don't know that the theory postulated by the author of this thread has been utterly rejected not only by Christian scholars, but my skeptics. Jesus mythicist Richard Carrier had this to say about this theory:

 

 

The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless. After all, a scholar who rarely cites a source isn't useful to have as a reference even if he is right. For examples of specific problems, however, see Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage, and some generally poor but not always incorrect Christian rebuttals. A very helpful discussion of related methodological problems by renowned scholar Bruce Metzger is also well worth reading ("Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity" 2002). In general, even when the evidence is real, it often only appears many years after Christianity began, and thus might be evidence of diffusion in the other direction. Another typical problem is that Graves draws far too much from what often amounts to rather vague evidence. In general, there are ten kinds of problems that crop up in Graves' work here and there:

  • Graves often does not distinguish his opinions and theories from what his sources and evidence actually state.
  • Graves often omits important sources and evidence.
  • Graves often mistreats in a biased or anachronistic way the sources he does use.
  • Graves occasionally relies on suspect sources.
  • Graves does little or no source analysis or formal textual criticism.
  • Graves' work is totally uninformed by modern social history (a field that did not begin to be formally pursued until after World War II, i.e., after Graves died).
  • Graves' conclusions and theories often far exceed what the evidence justifies, and he treats both speculations and sound theories as of equal value.
  • Graves often ignores important questions of chronology and the actual order of plausible historical influence, and completely disregards the methodological problems this creates.
  • Graves' work lacks all humility, which is unconscionable given the great uncertainties that surround the sketchy material he had to work with.
  • Graves' scholarship is obsolete, having been vastly improved upon by new methods, materials, discoveries, and textual criticism in the century since he worked. In fact, almost every historical work written before 1950 is regarded as outdated and untrustworthy by historians today.

All this is not to say Graves didn't have some things right. But you will never be able to tell what he has right from what he has wrong without totally redoing all his research and beyond, which makes him utterly useless to historians as a source. For example, almost all his sources on Krishna long postdate Christian-Nestorian influence on India. No pre-Christian texts on Krishna contain the details crucial to his case, apart from those few that were common among many gods everywhere. Can you tell from Graves which details are attested by early evidence, and which by late? That's a problem.

On the other side of the coin, consider his emphasis on the December 25 birth date as a common feature. This is one of the things he gets right, at least regarding Greco-Roman religion: all gods associated with the sun shared the sun's "birthday," erroneously identified as December 25 (it is actually the 21st). But for Jesus, we can actually trace when and why Jesus was assigned this birthday for political reasons in the 4th century, 300 years after Christianity began. Graves seems oblivious to the distinction between the origins of Christianity and its subsequent development. Yet no Christian in the beginning believed Jesus was born on December 25. But Graves obscures this fact, leading to false conclusions about the origins of the Christ story. So again, he gets some things right, but uses them in the wrong way. Can you tell when? That's a problem, too.

Another example is something written by the first philosophical defender of Christianity, Justin Martyr, who wrote around 160 A.D. These passages show the sort of stories that even Christians acknowledged as predating their own, and you can see how Graves sometimes embellishes and goes a bit too far with this kind of evidence--and there is no better evidence before the 3rd century, when Christian ideas were already affecting pagan thought. However, you will see here that there is a small kernel of truth in what Graves argues, but since he rarely cites sources and engages in almost no critical examination of texts we can't tell when he is right or wrong and that makes him useless to scholars.

Justin wrote in his Dialogue of Justin and Trypho (the Jew) (69-70):

Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and traveled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when the devil brings forward Asclepius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?

Although I have not exhaustively investigated this matter, I have confirmed only two real "resurrected" deities with some uncanny similarity to Jesus which are actually reported before Christian times, Zalmoxis and Inanna, neither of which is mentioned by Graves or John G. Jackson (another Gravesian author--though both mention Tammuz, for whom Inanna was mistaken in their day). This is apart from the obvious pre-Christian myths of Demeter, Dionysos, Persephone, Castor and Pollux, Isis and Osiris, and Cybele and Attis, which do indeed carry a theme of metaphorical resurrection, usually in the terms of a return or escape from the Underworld, explaining the shifting seasons. But these myths are not quite the same thing as a pre-Christian passion story. It only goes to show the pervasiveness in antiquity of an agricultural resurrection theme, and the Jesus story has more to it than that, although the cultural influence can certainly be acknowledged.

The only pre-Christian man to be buried and resurrected and deified in his own lifetime, that I know of, is the Thracian god Zalmoxis (also called Salmoxis or Gebele'izis), who is described in the mid-5th-century B.C.E. by Herodotus (4.94-96), and also mentioned in Plato's Charmides (156d-158b) in the early-4th-century B.C.E. According to the hostile account of Greek informants, Zalmoxis buried himself alive, telling his followers he would be resurrected in three years, but he merely resided in a hidden dwelling all that time. His inevitable "resurrection" led to his deification, and a religion surrounding him, which preached heavenly immortality for believers, persisted for centuries.

The only case, that I know, of a pre-Christian god actually being crucified and then resurrected is Inanna (also known as Ishtar), a Sumerian goddess whose crucifixion, resurrection and escape from the underworld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. 1500 B.C.E., attesting to a very old tradition. The best account and translation of the text is to be found in Samuel Kramer's History Begins at Sumer, pp. 154ff., but be sure to use the third revised edition (1981), since the text was significantly revised after new discoveries were made. For instance, the tablet was once believed to describe the resurrection of Inanna's lover, Tammuz (also known as Dumuzi). Graves thus mistakenly lists Tammuz as one of his "Sixteen Crucified Saviors." Of course, Graves cannot be discredited for this particular error, since in his day scholars still thought the tablet referred to that god (Kramer explains how this mistake happened).

There is great need of new work in this area. There really is a huge gap in modern scholarship here--this is one of the few subjects untouched by the post-WWII historiographical revolution. Most scholars today consider the subject dead, largely for all the wrong reasons. And there is little hope. The subject is stuck in the no-man's-land between history and religious studies, whose methods and academic cultures are so radically different they can barely communicate with each other, much less cooperate on a common project like this.

When I embarked on researching this stuff ten years ago (this actually partly launched my interest in history as a profession) I found it excruciatingly hard to find anything on the subject. Most of the relevant material (that worth reading anyway) is buried piecemeal in academic journals or chapters in obscure out-of-print books. At the time, I ended up with no recourse but to personally contact experts worldwide item by item.

I haven't seen any improvement since then. I have personally acquired a great deal of expertise in the related subjects, but only after a decade of hard-core exposure to source materials and other historical studies. I have never seen any attempt to get all this experience into one book, and sadly, though I have a growing file for a possible future book, I have no plans to work on this any time soon.

In any given case there are sometimes relevant and available books in English that can at least give you enough background to go back and assess what Graves claims, but no direct updates of his work.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” -- George Washington