- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- You Won't Believe in Christianity After Seeing This
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| You Won't Believe in Christianity After Seeing This | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 9 2016, 06:18 AM (4,191 Views) | |
|
|
Dec 9 2016, 06:18 AM Post #1 |
|
Clickbait title. You might still believe. I'm not judging. I'm sure many of you have seen this already. I saw it for the first time today. Despite being an atheist for four years now, this still blew my mind. I get a lot of flack in religious threads for insisting that Jesus more than likely didn't exist, but this film seems to support my claim. What do you think of this overall? https://youtu.be/a36_CwzA0bk This is the entire film, but my post is only in reference to part 1. Watch the entire part if you can because it's worth it. |
 |
 
|
| lazerbem | Dec 9 2016, 12:45 PM Post #2 |
 
|
Does clickbait belong in DD? Will watch when I get on mobile |
 Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2016, 01:42 PM Post #3 |
|
Clickbait might not, but this topic isn't clickbait. The title wasn't even true clickbait. I made a joke at the beginning because the last topic I made with a controversial title upset a few people. I felt the need to include a disclaimer. You should definitely watch it though. It was one of the most informative "documentaries" I'd ever seen on the subject of religion. I don't expect too many people to respond to this thread though, unfortunately. Most members aren't going to want to watch a 40 minute video just so they can respond. But I felt it was worth sharing anyway. |
|
|
|
| SpeedoTrunks | Dec 9 2016, 03:24 PM Post #4 |
|
Would it worth posting key points so people can read/debate? |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2016, 03:38 PM Post #5 |
|
It's a movie that received a lot of backlash when it was first released because it's anti-religious and also says some stuff about 9/11. As much as you may disagree with the parts about 9/11 and the government, this thread is only about part 1, which would only take up about 30-40 minutes of your time. To summarize, it's comparing the story of Jesus to the stories of dozens of other deities that had previously existed in other religions, the main example being Horace, the Sun God of Egyptian Mythology. Many deities share the same origin stories (virgin birth, taught at the age of 12, baptized at 30, 12 disciples, died and rose again after 3 days, December 25, the "son" of God being compared to the rising and falling of the sun, etc.) The film explains all of this by using facts about the zodiac, constellations, and how ancient peoples would have interpreted them. Its main argument seems to be that the Jesus story, the Moses story, the flood story, and many others are plagiarisms of ancient pagan religions that had come before Christianity, and the film supports this claim in a very compelling, informative manner. I highly recommend you watch it, but if you don't, I suppose you can talk about your thoughts on Jesus being the exact same story we've already seen in dozens of other pagan religions which predated him. At the end of part 1, the film explains that Jesus more than likely didn't exist since the ancient scholars who confirmed his existence didn't mention Jesus; they vaguely mentioned "Christ." The film discounts the historical evidence for Jesus in a much better way than I ever could in words. If you want the jist of it, you might just skip around. I posted this thread in a hurry because I was excited to finally find a documentary that was so good, for lack of a better word, at explaining things that I had always known to be true but never had the facts to back up. It's apparently a very controversial film that was viewed by millions when it was first released, but I'd never even heard of it until someone brought it to my attention a few days ago. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Dec 9 2016, 03:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 9 2016, 08:32 PM Post #6 |
|
Oh boy, it's Zeitgeist again. It's about as useful for this sort of thing as Ancient Aliens is, but credibility aside, let's look at its claims. Okay, so Horus being misconstrued as the Sun is a gross misconception of Egyptian mythology through a lens that is not the way they saw it. The Egyptians believed in a very free form pantheon, where gods had many different shapes and facets to themselves. But in a more noteworthy fashion, it is Ra who is more closely associated with the Sun as compared to Horus, who is more closely related to the sky and pharaoh(Though both are indeed related to the Sun in some fashion, it's hard to explain Egyptian mythology). Set is also not a being of darkness but of chaos, darkness fits closer with Apophis. Also, Set wasn't all evil and was in fact benevolent at times by helping Ra fend off Apophis. The part about Horus battling Set is blatantly wrong. Horus did battle Set in order to claim his throne and get revenge for the murder of his father, but this isn't a continuous cycle. Whoever made the video is confusing the battle between Apophis and Ra to Set and Horus. But even that's a flawed comparison, because Apophis never beat Ra(when Apophis beats Ra, it means the death of the Sun and creation as we know it). Now, about Horus's virgin birth. Yeah, this is just plain wrong. Horus was conceived by a disembodied penis of his father, Osiris, when his mother, Isis, revives his currently disembodied penis(as Osiris had been chopped to pieces by this point and Isis really wanted that baby). Not a virgin birth by any definition, though certainly a magical one. Also, neither was born on December 25th. Jesus's birth is never given a specific date and the fact that it was placed in December only appeared 300 years after the fact. This part is perhaps drawing from a pre-existing ritual, but the birth date itself wasn't in the original stories to begin with, so it's a bit of a moot point. Horus is born on the winter solstice, but considering we have thousands of years of writing for Horus, that doesn't tell us much. The three wise men thing is not only a misinterpretation of scripture(the number of wise men that came to visit Jesus is never given) but is also something that never happened to Horus in canon. The addition of wise men came from Gerald Massey, an English poet who wrote a lot about Egyptian mythology in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. There's no record of a "three wise men" tale concerning Horus before Massey. Again, the baptizing for Horus comes from Massey, as do the disciples. Anup and these disciples don't appear in any original Egyptian mythology, Massey just made them up. The closest we get to 12 disciples is a mural with 12 men on it, but Horus isn't on this mural and our only source for it is once again, Massey who made lots of things up. Horus had followers, but it was never in the way of disciples or 12, he had followers because he was a king and warrior. Horus also wasn't in the business of miracles and healing. It was his mother that brought Osiris back, Horus had nothing to do with that beyond beating the crap out of Set so his mom could go do that. He also wouldn't need to walk on water since he could just fly. His titles were also a fair bit more violent than the video implies, more like god of war, god of the sky, god of kings, and what not. The stuff about being defeated by Typhon is pure nonsense. Typhon is a Greek monster who fought Mt. Olympus, and needless to say, had nothing to do with Horus. Horus never had any myths of dying either, sorry to say, so he can't have been crucified or ressurected either. I could go into this further, but safe to say that the research for this part of the documentary is a joke and relies purely on a gross misunderstanding of Egyptian mythology, and indeed, other mythologies too. If this is the best evidence that can be brought to the table, then it isn't a strong case at all. Even Yu-Gi-Oh! has a better grasp on ancient mythology than Zeitgeist does. It's a conspiracy theory espousing documentary without much of a leg to stand on. Edited by lazerbem, Dec 9 2016, 08:33 PM.
|
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2016, 10:05 PM Post #7 |
|
I already looked every bit of that up before posting, so I'm well aware of everything posed. Just take a look at this: http://freethoughtnation.com/no-zeitigeist-has-not-been-refuted/ Read the initial post and the comments. I can see your points, and I acknowledge some of it, but overall I think it's a very compelling argument after researching it extensively today. EDIT: Also, I'm more than willing to admit that I could be wrong. I never really stated that I agreed with every argument presented in the documentary; I just thought that it was really interesting, and a lot of it does hold a lot of merit (specific details aside). I am certainly not an expert on any of this, so I've still been looking into it. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Dec 9 2016, 10:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 9 2016, 10:10 PM Post #8 |
|
It is quite interesting to see Jesus as a solar deity, giving interesting significance to the number of apostles. His sharing of December celebration with Sol Invictus, too, might suggest early Christian Romans saw them as parallels, and with Jesus himself occasionally being described as a light of sorts. Though, the "God's sun/son" homophone is completely false when you consider that none of these beliefs were founded in the English language, and I don't buy all the astrological claims, such as Sirius and Orion pointing to the rising of the Sun on the 25th, and the Sun resting on the Crux. I do think the "Age of Pisces" was an appealing line of thought, seeing as there's no clear reason why Christianity's coded symbol should be the fish of all things, with only seeming attempts to explain it. It would also be a wonderfully poetic explanation why El, and perhaps at the time Yahweh himself, were symbolised as Bulls, and give significance to their violent rejection of its specific imagery. Though, there are much better explanations for these series of events, and the rejection of all portrayals of their god. There's still perfectly good reason to believe that a historical Jesus never existed, though, and that it was a belief or "fact" made up after the fact. In Corinthians 15:3 - 4, Paul asserts some "facts" about Jesus' death and resurrection that he knows to be true "according to the scriptures". If he is to have been alive at the same time as Jesus, and to have met others who met a physical Jesus, then why would he be getting his "facts" about his death and resurrection from scriptures that can not possibly have begun to circulate about him - especially since Paul was himself the first serious writer of this very movement about a man that had supposedly, very recently just died? The texts would seem to be the Tanakh, with writers like Saul referring back to them in the creation—or, probably to his mind, discovery—of their much desired Messiah. Mark blatantly plays this game, when he writes of Jesus: Why would Jesus perform such a bizarrely specific act, and why would it in any way be significant? It makes sense when you know that Zechariah says this in the Hebrew texts: I highlighted the first quote that the Kingdom of their father David is coming, because it's worth pointing out here that the prophet was expressly meant to be from the Davidic line, and Jesus supposedly fulfills this also. There are plenty of other bizarre and key things that Mark and other writers have Jesus do, that others have done or spoke of in the Old Testament, and they all speak to a literary creation. Which should go without saying, really. It is Saul that seems to tell us that there wasn't even a real person that the writers started attributing these things to, but that he had seemingly always been in the text, as far as he was concerned, waiting to be discovered and offer salvation. For further proof that the magical Jesus is pure fiction, though—not that it's necessary to conclude in any way—you should look in to the parallels between Homer's Odyssey and Mark's Gospel. Mark, of course, being a Greek writer would be more than familiar with it, and seems very clearly to take a number of key events and themes, and either invert them or make Jesus do one better than Ulysses. The main sequence comparison I recall is: Odysseus and his men travel to the Island of the Cyclops, where they all disembark. In a cave they meet Polyphemus, who asks Odysseus his name. Odysseus says his name is "Nobody", which is used as wordplay. Odysseus blinds Polyphemus, and then he and his men escape by riding on the underside of sheep. Once on the boat, Odysseus taunts the cyclops by revealing his name to him, himself too arrogant to let "Nobody" get the credit. Jesus and his followers travel to the island of the Gadarenes, where Jesus alone disembarks. From a tomb he meets a man possessed, and Jesus asks the demon his name. The demons says their name is "legion", which is wordplay, "for they are many". Jesus casts out the demons, and then they escape by riding in the inside of pigs. Once at the boat, Jesus tells the man once possessed to tell people what he had done for him, wanting others to know of his deeds. The last comparison I noted myself, but the sequence of events are the same, and Jesus comes out looking even greater than Odysseus. It's also humorous that he would seem to make Jesus get on a ship merely because of the sailing involved in The Odyssey. There are other inversions and direct sequence comparisons, but I'm not well versed in either writing to lay them all out for you. Here's a little write up about the book that makes the connection and case, if anyone's interested in it. Even the bizarre ending to Mark's Gospel makes sense when you consider it him intentionally writing a literary work, and not pretending to recount events; it ends on a bloody cliffhanger, that makes absolutely no sense in any other context. When the women that go to check on Jesus' body find him resurrected, he tells them to tell his disciples that he's going ahead of them to Galilee. It ends: So, how does anyone, least of all Mark, know the story of his resurrection as something of a recounting when the only people that knew of it, and were meant to spread word of it, said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid..? He doesn't even offer that he was the sole exception to this, and himself makes no pretense that it's anything other than his own epic story. |
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 9 2016, 10:51 PM Post #9 |
|
You mean the conspiracy theory site that loves its 9/11 and flat earth conspiracies? You aren't doing a good job of making this argument look rational rather than a fringe idea peddled by conspiracy theorists
I did, and the fact that the site can blurt out blatant lies does not make it truer. Here, have some scholarly sources on that note.
Only source to this I can find is Zeitgeist, other than that, the idea seems to be Horus being born on the Epagomenal Days, sometime slightly after summer. Conflicting opinions are natural, of course, for such a small detail in such a rich culture http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/glossary.aspx?id=148
This goes back to the classic misconception of Horus's identity and Egyptian mythology in general. Horus is, at the same time, also Heru-khuti, when his eyes are the Sun and Moon. Horus also becomes Osiris, but Horus remains Horus and Ra is Ra, only Ra is a part of Horus and when the two are expressed together that is what we call Ra-Horakhti. It is hardly a constant rebirth
And yet, she boned Osiris to produce Horus New York Folklore Society (1973). "New York folklore quarterly". 29. Cornell University Press. p. 294.
I can't disprove something that's simply made up.There's no Egyptian source that mentions any of this, it's purely made up
You mean Anubis? Hart 1986, pp. 23–24; Wilkinson 2003, pp. 188–90
They disprove their own theory by providing a source http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/1A*.html Do you see any mention of crucifixion of Horus there? Or his death? Or anything resembling that?
Technically true, however, that has more to do with the fact that the tree she ate from also happened to made from a god's blood http://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/ancient-religions/ancient-religion/attis#Attis It also goes without saying that if he's reborn in spring, it's not the winter solstice
It was a stone. He was born from a stone according to Mithraic Studies. A stone might count as a virgin though?
More made up stuff
More made up
This is some pretty hilarious quote mining. What Mithra did was sacrifice a bull for sacrifice, but certainly not himself. Check Mithraic studies for more on this, but the only sacrifice here was of the bull he slaughtered(and not for peace either)
More made up stuff
A compelling argument that is based on pure lies and dishonesty? http://skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/ Here's my main source, but I can find others if you want them. The end point is that making things up doesn't help disprove Christianity.
So you post a documentary that you know is wrong on multiple levels as your "Aha!" to disprove Christianity? Seems very strange to me. Honestly, I don't know why this documentary is clung to as if it were the Holy Bible of the Jesus myths. Zeitgeist is just lie after lie. It's tantamount to some Christian video saying that Obama and Putin are the Anti-Christ due to obscure and tangled Biblical references. |
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 9 2016, 10:57 PM Post #10 |
|
Then why bother posting the documentary that is so inaccurate?
That's not what's being argued in this thread, what's being argued is whether or not Jesus the man existed and if he didn't, then did they just decide to rip off other religions. Honestly, the argument for a historical Jesus becomes stronger with atheist thought. Why bother letting their Messiah be executed like a common criminal and in such a humiliating way? You have to take into account that a Messiah dying just wasn't a thing at the time. It would have been unthinkable. The only reason for it would be that it was in recent memory and they couldn't bulls*** like Mark did to cover things up. Not to mention the whole convoluted issue with him being born in Bethlehem despite being Jesus of Nazareth. Disbelieving in Jesus the Son of God isn't the same as disbelieving in Jesus the random prophet in the sticks who got crucified. P.S. The Gospels weren't compiled until later. Treat them like an anthology more so than a single work. Edited by lazerbem, Dec 9 2016, 11:00 PM.
|
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2016, 11:07 PM Post #11 |
|
You can't deny that there is truth to the claim that much of the Bible, including certain mythical figures like Jesus, Moses, Jonah, etc. were probably adapted from pagan religions that predated Christianity. I'm getting a bit confused by all these sources being thrown about, but that was the crux of my argument, film aside. This is the first time I've ever seen or heard of Zeitgeist, so don't shoot the messenger on his first day at the job.  I thought it was interesting, so I shared it asking for opinions. This is what I'd hoped for.
Nah, I posted it because all of that information blew my mind. I had never heard any of it before or even really thought about Egyptian mythology aside from what little I had learned in the 9th grade. I didn't post it as fact; I posted it to start a conversation since the forum has seemed a bit dead lately. The title was an effort to get more people riled up and interested in the topic, and it seems to have worked. I'm glad we're having this discussion. It's actually really interesting to someone who doesn't know a lick about Egyptian mythology. While I can definitely see all of your points, I will have to look into it more myself. The crux of the argument posed in Zeitgeist is a good one, but I'm sure it has flaws. I gathered that when the film switched from talking about Jesus to claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. I wonder what made them decide to make up facts. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Dec 9 2016, 11:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 9 2016, 11:25 PM Post #12 |
|
I doubt it. Some stories, perhaps, were adapted in, but in the end, there was probably some kind of real core behind it. Coincidentally, this is the leading theory for Egypt too as to explain why their gods are so multi-faceted(they were integrating the gods of the people they conquered)
Think of it like Ancient Aliens, it's kind of infamous in that way.
Right, but then it seems strange to put a conversation starter in Deep Discussion with the leading post being one that you know is untrue.
I'm a bit of an amateur myself on Egyptian mythology because it's incredibly hard to understand and varies a lot from time to time(all religions do, but Egyptian culture seemed to do it a lot more than western ones). But yes, it is interesting and recommendable.
Conspiracy theories have a general psychology behind them in order to explain away something as a single, monolithic entity rather than acts of random chance or many people working together or things that seem too fanciful to happen. It's in the same breed as those Youtube videos with the scary music that talk about how My Little Pony is satanic. They disliked something, but they couldn't quite figure out something really wrong with it, so they began to search for connections and where there weren't any, they made them. Perhaps lie or make up is the wrong word. Perhaps another word for it would be thinking something is true and then coming up with the reasoning for it later. In a way, like a faith unto itself. Now, if you want to believe in some kind of Egyptian-Christian-Pagan mythology religion thing, that's fine, but attempting to present it as some kind of historically merited analysis is going a tad far. The idea that Mark ripped off the Odyssey is probably true, what probably isn't is all four of the Gospels working on a conspiracy in tandem that made their Messiah look like a criminal and discredited him in the eyes of the Jews. |
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2016, 11:31 PM Post #13 |
|
I've never seen that either, but you're making me want to watch it now. This reminds me of the time my dad watched a documentary proving the existence of mermaids and insisted that they were real and scientifically proven for months. Similar things have been done with bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and any number of mythical conspiracy theories. I didn't post it believing it to be untrue. I posted it believing it to be possibly fudged and hoped that members would either explain to me how it was true or explain it away as you did. When I googled it and came across numerous websites loaded with sources and quotes from experts on Egyptian mythology proving it to be true, it had me leaning in that direction, but now I'm back where I started again. I think my mind is even more blown than it was to begin with. One more question though: how would you attempt to disprove those quotes from experts on Egyptian mythology who side with the main idea presented in Zeitgeist? I believe they're listed in the comments to that link I showed you. |
|
|
|
| lazerbem | Dec 9 2016, 11:53 PM Post #14 |
|
Siegfried Morenz is pretty brutally quote mined. Here's another quote from him
Siegfried says that Egyptian religion does affect Christianity, but that the Trinity is Christian in origin. Bojana Mosov is of the same train of thought as Siegfried. Erik Hornung adds later in his book that a lot of Egyptian myth ended up making its way into Christian doctrine, but that was due to local culture and wasn't the official position.
So what Erik is talking about has to do with traditions and views on Christianity being taken from Egyptian mythology while at the same time, the original Christianity was quite different. Also, the comment section has stuff like
So I'm kind of inclined to not dig very deep into this swamp. The point is that the Egyptologists say that Egyptian myth influenced Christian ideas, but only one outright says that it was an analog and even that one says himself that it wasn't the official Christian doctrine(at the time, what Christianity became later is a different subject. You have to understand just how insanely fragmented religion was at this point. There were religious rebel leaders of all kinds popping up that required Roman cavalry to put down, there were splinter heretic groups all over the place in the Middle Ages, and tons of other random stuff to the point that modern Christianity would be grossly different from its inception due to the amount of time that has passed). But yes, only one Egyptologist makes the claim and he admits that Egyptian thought wasn't official according to the Church, so yeah. It'd be foolish to deny that Christianity has evolved since its inception from local cultures. Christmas itself was in all likelihood a pagan idea. However, it is a different matter to say that the very root of the matter was a plagiarism. It's borderline insulting to the pagan religions, given how they had their own rich culture and ideas that they fought to keep their own. Edited by lazerbem, Dec 9 2016, 11:56 PM.
|
|
Crazy cat cults in the woods | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Dec 10 2016, 12:08 AM Post #15 |
|
I didn't post the documentary, my other self did, and the main reason the documentary was posted was because it talked of the creation of the Jesus myth. While I don't buy in to many of the things said in the video, and are unsure of the accuracy of some others— find Egyptian mythology to be especially laborious in tracking down a coherent narrative, or clear fact, since they seem to have so many versions of any one deity or event—I provided a more solid look at the way in which the fictional Jesus was conceived, by way of the Jewish scriptures and Mark using The Odyssey. But it goes the same way to the stuff you just went about gleefully debunking. I also provided the reasoning for why Paul himself—the biggest contributor to spreading, and perhaps the genesis of the Christ as we know him—wasn't talking of a messiah living around his own time, but someone supposedly written of in "the scriptures". It is Paul's Jesus that first existed, and seems to have no basis in a man that was recently crucified, but rather someone that had been revealed to him through scripture and vision - visions being something Paul was prone to. Paul asserts that this messiah did die and was resurrected, "according to the scripture"... Not anyone's account, but scripture. There's a precedent for the messiah's death and resurrection somewhere, and independent of the need for any apocalyptic preacher that was crucified. Undesireable trials are also a staple of Greek heroes, that would have influenced the Hellenistic Christianity a good deal, and the Jesus character favourably conquered death. Like going to Hades and back. Him experiencing suffering for the sake of mankind goes a profound way towards him being a desireable model of a saviour - evidently. If this was a fabrication, it was far and away the best one. I'm well aware, but given all that I've said here, and what I said regarding secular sources in our last discussion, there are one of three possibilities: 1) Jesus existed as an apocalyptic preacher, and his near unbelievable death spurred the creation of tall stories of a resurrection and a second coming by those that believed him the messiah. A romantic view I quite like. 2) Jesus was an entirely mythological messiah that eventually got conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with an apocalyptic preacher that had been killed like one of many. The prophet's name may not have even been Jesus, but it also may have, making the conflation more natural. 3) Jesus was always and has only ever been mythological, just like Odysseus, Achilles, Perseus, and even like prophets of his native origins in Judaism; Moses, Elijah, and the patriarchs. There's no reason to believe any of them are less mythical than Romulus and Remus, or Hengist and Horsa, or Brutus of Troy. I never said a historical Jesus (that the myths are attributed to) never existed, I said there's good reason to believe he didn't. There is also good reason to believe he did. Neither are conclusive. Edit:- Oh, and though Mark has surely received edits, omissions, and additions over the years, it seems to form a complete text by a single author in the same way Homer's writings do. It's also the most useful, being the basis for all the other canonical gospels. Edited by Sandy Shore, Dec 10 2016, 12:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:40 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy