-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Jesus the "sun" -DeBunked
- Thread starter Vanlavak
- Start date
bluejatheist
New Member
Re: Jesus the "sun"
Inb4 lock
Inb4 lock
Re: Jesus the "sun"
FTFY
I don't see how a clip from Zeitgeist can be taken as serious input to a discussion, the very source is tainted x.x
The points may or may not be accurate, but I don't see how this disproves anything. If accurate, it demonstrates that the jesus myth is very similar to other myths, but that demonstration in and of itself doesn't provide any refuting evidence for a historical jesus, or a divine jesus. Also, I don't think this needs a fresh thread, there is already a thread on this subject
Vanlavak said:
FTFY
I don't see how a clip from Zeitgeist can be taken as serious input to a discussion, the very source is tainted x.x
The points may or may not be accurate, but I don't see how this disproves anything. If accurate, it demonstrates that the jesus myth is very similar to other myths, but that demonstration in and of itself doesn't provide any refuting evidence for a historical jesus, or a divine jesus. Also, I don't think this needs a fresh thread, there is already a thread on this subject
theyounghistorian77
New Member
Re: Jesus the "sun"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Zeitgeist has been completely debunked
And Most serious historians accept the historicity of Jesus. I refer to the posts of the excellent Dragan Glas in this thread on this matter
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Zeitgeist has been completely debunked
And Most serious historians accept the historicity of Jesus. I refer to the posts of the excellent Dragan Glas in this thread on this matter
Anachronous Rex
New Member
Re: Jesus the "sun"
And the really annoying thing about Zeitgeist is that there is actually quite a lot of good reason to suppose that large parts of the Christian tradition were plagiarized secondhand from Persian Zoroastrian ideas, particularly the Cult of Mithra. However Zeitgeist overplays these sort of similarities, and thus discredits real academics work on the subject. Every time I bring the subject up in academic circles I have to begin by spending a long time explaining that I'm not condoning the misinformation of the film, and even then they tend to look at me sceptically for quite a while until they're satisfied that I'm not speaking complete rubbish. I will never forgive Zeitgeist for this irritation.
This.theyounghistorian77 said:
And the really annoying thing about Zeitgeist is that there is actually quite a lot of good reason to suppose that large parts of the Christian tradition were plagiarized secondhand from Persian Zoroastrian ideas, particularly the Cult of Mithra. However Zeitgeist overplays these sort of similarities, and thus discredits real academics work on the subject. Every time I bring the subject up in academic circles I have to begin by spending a long time explaining that I'm not condoning the misinformation of the film, and even then they tend to look at me sceptically for quite a while until they're satisfied that I'm not speaking complete rubbish. I will never forgive Zeitgeist for this irritation.
Re: Jesus the "sun"
So the presenters argument there was, "Now, I don't actually know anything about this subject, but it seems to me that I'm probably right and you're wrong".
I wish sometimes people would just let the experts speak so we could hear what they have to say.
It was like listening to Dr Craig say to Lawrence Krauss "Now you're a cosmologist and have a PHD in the field, but it seems to me you're wrong, and I should know because I am a theologian".
Laurens said:
So the presenters argument there was, "Now, I don't actually know anything about this subject, but it seems to me that I'm probably right and you're wrong".
I wish sometimes people would just let the experts speak so we could hear what they have to say.
It was like listening to Dr Craig say to Lawrence Krauss "Now you're a cosmologist and have a PHD in the field, but it seems to me you're wrong, and I should know because I am a theologian".
KittenKoder
New Member
Well, to say "Jesus didn't exist" is like saying John doesn't exist in the US. It proves nothing nor does it discount anything. To say "Jesus existed as this one (and only one) book says" is quite easy to counter.
Though I do see that the myth of Jesus was likely stolen from the ancient Egyptians, the myths of Imhotep and Osiris sort of mashed up. Thunderf00t's observations of the similarities to the sun gods, however, is solid as well, depending on which aspect of the christian beliefs you ascribe to as being predominant. However, it has been demonstrated so much that the few historical records that do mention such a person are inaccurate at best, that I shall not repeat those details as my attention span for such matters is limited.
As I went through the passages recounting the legend of Imhotep though, I was struck with how nearly identical to the christian bible they were. The death and elevation to Ra's side in particular struck me as almost word for word, if you read the ancient Egyptian texts as they are written. Healing of lepers, Imhotep did that as well, however, Imhotep was a real person who did have an advanced understanding of medical science long before this Jesus even existed. He performed brain surgery (my favorite little fact) successfully at a time where they didn't understand about viruses. He refined medication from plants, not as refined as our modern methods but well enough to actually help. He was also selfless.
But the point, this all happened before the Jesus myths were even suppose to have happened. Before the Romans attacked and slaughtered that once great scientific nation and destroyed all of it's advances, well, they were great and scientific compared to the rather ignorant level of knowledge at that time. Imhotep was also considered blessed by Ra, a bit too much to be coincidence, no?
Though I do see that the myth of Jesus was likely stolen from the ancient Egyptians, the myths of Imhotep and Osiris sort of mashed up. Thunderf00t's observations of the similarities to the sun gods, however, is solid as well, depending on which aspect of the christian beliefs you ascribe to as being predominant. However, it has been demonstrated so much that the few historical records that do mention such a person are inaccurate at best, that I shall not repeat those details as my attention span for such matters is limited.
As I went through the passages recounting the legend of Imhotep though, I was struck with how nearly identical to the christian bible they were. The death and elevation to Ra's side in particular struck me as almost word for word, if you read the ancient Egyptian texts as they are written. Healing of lepers, Imhotep did that as well, however, Imhotep was a real person who did have an advanced understanding of medical science long before this Jesus even existed. He performed brain surgery (my favorite little fact) successfully at a time where they didn't understand about viruses. He refined medication from plants, not as refined as our modern methods but well enough to actually help. He was also selfless.
But the point, this all happened before the Jesus myths were even suppose to have happened. Before the Romans attacked and slaughtered that once great scientific nation and destroyed all of it's advances, well, they were great and scientific compared to the rather ignorant level of knowledge at that time. Imhotep was also considered blessed by Ra, a bit too much to be coincidence, no?
I think the first thing one always needs to do first when in a discussion about the existence of Jesus is to, like in many discussions, define Jesus. After that we can discuss if he existed or not.
Oh and KittenKoder; I though that decline of Egypt started a bit before the Roman attacks in 1st century BC. More precisely about the end of 19th dynasty after which the country was fragmented and invaded more than once untill the time of Alexanders ... visit and the Ptolemy dynasty which admittingly brought new rise to the nation. Also Romans didn't exactly slaughter Egypt nor destroyed it's advances. In roman period Alexandria was a great center for learning, perhaps the greatest in known world at the time (yeah yeah, I'm totally dissin China here). Could be wrong about that though, been ages since I read up on Egyption history (after Fifth Miracle I'll start on the biography of Alexander, that should be interesting).
Oh and KittenKoder; I though that decline of Egypt started a bit before the Roman attacks in 1st century BC. More precisely about the end of 19th dynasty after which the country was fragmented and invaded more than once untill the time of Alexanders ... visit and the Ptolemy dynasty which admittingly brought new rise to the nation. Also Romans didn't exactly slaughter Egypt nor destroyed it's advances. In roman period Alexandria was a great center for learning, perhaps the greatest in known world at the time (yeah yeah, I'm totally dissin China here). Could be wrong about that though, been ages since I read up on Egyption history (after Fifth Miracle I'll start on the biography of Alexander, that should be interesting).
KittenKoder
New Member
I cannot argue that the decline began earlier, but I was speaking more on the aspect of the records and artifacts, and pretty cool cities, being laid to ruin. I say destroyed because it's nicer than saying stole it. Though details on the catalyst lie out of my particular knowledge on the subject, so I mash what mythology I know from christian studies to fill in the gaps on reflex, then put bias for the Egyptians since I know most of the christian history is, to say the least, a mess.Visaki said: