Zeitgeist means “The spirit of the age,” and is a recent documentary that has had many people in doubt of their faith in Jesus Christ. It makes claims that Christianity is wrapped up in ancient mythology whose origin far precedes that of the account of Jesus. Many similarities are brought up and compared between the details of Jesus’ life and that of a plethora of mythological gods. The emphasis of the film attempts to tie Jesus character as no more than just a role in the zodiac, and they even go so far as to question whether he really existed.
It is a 2 hour long movie, and the past 2/3rds of it have to do with government propaganda, which is out of the scope of this blog. I have watched the movie, and have done some research into most of the claims contained within. I started with ancient Egyptian mythology, and their god, Horus. The first claim of the movie is that the story of Jesus Christ was similar to that of the Egyptian sun god, Horus, who likewise:
-Was born on December 25th,
-Was born of a virgin,
-His birth foretold by a star in the east,
-Was visited by three kings,
-Began teaching at the age of 12,
-Was baptized into ministry at the age of 30,
-Had 12 disciples,
-Was betrayed and crucified,
-Was resurrected.
-His nickname was the “Lamb of God.”
They also claim that the history of the sun god, Horus, was dated before that of the birth of Jesus Christ. The implication being that Christianity is unoriginal, and was plagiarized from other more ancient religions.
Many people have watched this movie without giving any thought to its validity or credibility (Just like they did with Da Vinci Code). But if you look into it, you will find that once again, deception cannot hold its own weight against the truth of the Word of God.
I will give you a brief example of what I have found, and then I will give you a few incredibile resources with which to dig deeper, should you have any questions about the movie.
First of all, you can scratch off several of these claims immediately, due to bad research and credibility on their part.
-There is no mention of December 25th as being the birthplace of Jesus in the Bible.
-There is no mention whatsoever of the number of men that came to visit Jesus, and there was certainly no mention of three. In addition, they were not kings, but magi (wise men specializing in astrology, astronomy, and natural science- Matthew 2:1).
Secondly, a lot of these claims are not backed up by a credible source. You would think these claims would be heavily documented, but even if you were to conduct a Google search on Horus, or “Egyptian Mythology,” you would have a difficult time finding any evidence for most of the claims made concerning his similarity with Jesus. Most of the sites that do have agendas directly related to the movie and cause of Zeitgeist.
WHAT WE DO KNOW FOR CERTAIN:
-Jesus never disappeared before coming back on the scene to minister, he worked humbly as a carpenter, and studied the scriptures (Luke 2:49). Further more, there is no evidence stating that Horus was baptized or taught in a temple.
-The only outside research I could find on Horus’ 12 disciples falls far short of Zeitgeist claim. There is only record of four disciples.
-Horus was never crucified. There is research done on kingdavid8.com by a man who found the unofficial story of Horus’ death in which “he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.”
kingdavid8.com
-None of these titles that they claim for Horus:
"Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," "Son of Man," "Good Shepherd," "Lamb of God," "Word made flesh," and "Word of Truth" are found in Egyptian mythology.
-And lastly, he was not born of a virgin as the movie claims.
Think about this…his mom (Isis) was married to his dad (Osiris). As mythology will tell you, Osiris was killed and his body dismembered. Isis then had to put his body back together in order to have intercourse with it. Isis was not a virgin. Mary was, by the power of the Holy Spirit of the one true God.
Do you see the deception? This is simply one small story in a web of intricately twisted lies. The problem: a tremendous lack of credibility, and bad research….just like Da Vinci Code. You can see the ease with which a simple individual after God’s heart can unwind the lies. If there are further questions, if you have seen the movie, or if you know someone who has, be confident in God’s sovereignty and ability to protect His Word, and search the Scriptures (and history) to find the truth (2 Tim 2:15). BUT PLEASE- At least research these claims, before you consider them truth.
I have one thing to add. Even if the claims were absolutely true…what is the difference between Horus and Jesus that makes His claims credible? Jesus was an actual historical figure who died and rose from the dead, backed up by a ridiculous amount of evidence and eye witness reports. Horus is a painting on a wall.
Below are some excellent resources for further examination.
Online:
Charlie H. Campbell: Zeitgeist
Ronald Nash
Kingdavid8.com
Books:
The Case for the Real Jesus – Lee Strobel.
The Gospel and the Greeks –Ronald Nash
Posts
4 comments:
Sorry to ruin your parade but.....
Horus is not just a painting on a wall. His culture is so extensive that a few "Google" searches does not justify the truth of nearly 3,000 years of Horus type worshipping. His traditions have been traced up in the mountains of Iran, on the borders of Turkey where some believe the Garden of Eden once was. He was originally a hawk with each eye representing the sun and moon. As his people moved down from the mountains through Iraq and crossed over to Egypt it acquired many other of the surrounding attributes. In The early Egyptian monarchy he was the protector of the kings. There are many Horus story types in Egypt Including THE ancient Savior story.
It would be unfair to Christians to say that Jesus is not real because only 4 plagiarized gospels speak of Jesus (all which seem to be copies of Mark by the way). Not one original gospel survived. Before you post your ridiculous rebuttal you need to further your research on a topic, not just Google.
Please people understand. There is a case for a historical Jesus, a failed Messiah that never reestablished Yahweh's promised Kingdom for Israel, the chosen people of God. The Jews are still waiting for a messiah from a descendant of David's bloodline who will rebuilt the temple and restore the Israelite kingdom! The messiahship is only an earthly man who will restore Israel from oppression to live freely under god's covenant on an earthly kingdom.
Then the Romans politically built Christianity by stealing the messiahship from the Jews. They then placed the kingdom in heaven to better control the poor and uneducated with false promises of a utopian afterlife, only if they behave. Get out of the box and read books from linguists, archeologist, anthropologist, and astrologist! Don't Google!
goddess prevail,
Thank you for taking the time to post on my blog. It’s responses like this that remind me that people do read it.
To clarify, this blog was designed in mind for people who are not as so thoroughly educated as you, yet still want to be informed in a way that they can understand, then take responsibility for themselves. Not everyone has 800-page volumes and editions lining their dining room mantle. For those that want to research my claims more in depth (and I encourage them to do so), there are “non-Google” resources below most of my writings listed for any human to read and study. Of course, most writings today are made readily available through Google, so I’ve listed those as well. If anything is extensively researched in the scholarly community, you will probably be able to find it online. You drive my point home by stating that there are nearly 3,000 years of “traditions…archeology…astrology…and anthropology” to support the theories pertaining to the plagiarizing of Horus’ place in history. Given this overflow of information, I find it humorous that Google hasn’t caught on yet. Perhaps they are un-scholarly. The rest of your first paragraph is interesting, but does nothing to usurp the thrust of my original blog, so I will leave it intact as an educational excerpt on the painting of Horus and how he got there.
In the later paragraph, you state that the four gospels were plagiarized, that Mark was copied, that none of the original Gospels survived, that Jesus is a “failed Messiah that never reestablished Yahweh’s promised kingdom for Israel,” and that Christianity was designed by the Romans for political power, by using the “stolen messiahship” to wrestle power over the Jews.
I will address each one of these assertions individually and briefly.
I’m unclear by what you mean when you say that the Gospels were “plagiarized.” Perhaps you are referring to the accusation I hear about so much concerning the Gnostic “gospels,” which is silly since most of the Gnostic writings were dated at least a century AFTER Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If anything was plagiarized between the two, it was the Gnostics plagiarizing the apostolic Gospels.
You then point out that all the Gospels in the New Testament “seem to be copies of Mark.” Perhaps this was what you were referring to: that the gospels seemed to be plagiarizing Mark. I don’t like the word “seem.” If “Google” is a bad word in the scholarly world, then “seem” is definitely unscholarly. Please show me where it is evidenced that Matthew, Luke, and John copied Mark’s essay paper. Slightly in your favor, I recall Mark D. Roberts (who received his doctorate in Christian Origins and New Testament from Harvard University) state “the majority of New Testament scholars believe that Matthew used Mark as one of his major sources.”* This is similar to what I’m doing with Mark D. Roberts. I am referring to his thorough research in order to give a better account of things that have happened. Yet this is not plagiarizing, it’s research. And you fail to explain why this is such a problem, at least with Luke, for he TELLS us that this is the very thing he is about to do in the opening verses of his first book:
“Inasmuch as many [Matthew…Mark] have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order…” (Luke 1:1-3, emphasis and brackets mine).
In addition, I think it should be noted that NO ONE thinks John was plagiarized or even sourced from the rest of the Gospel accounts. If anything, it is accused of being too different by emphasizing the deity of Christ more thoroughly over Matthew’s theme of Jesus ushering in the Kingdom of God. It wouldn't have mattered either way, considering John was an eyewitness to Jesus Christ life, death, and resurrection.
You then point out that no original Gospels survived. You are correct. Papyrus was cheap, but unfortunately, it was not durable. Which is also why we do not have OTHER ancient document originals (called autographs), including works by Homer, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, Caesar, and Pliny. Thankfully, we have manuscript copies, and the study of textual criticism to help us determine accurately what the originals said. We also have early, non-biblical testimony in the writings of others. In fact, even if all the copies of the Gospels were wiped out early on in addition to the autographs, we would still have record of the words that were contained to an almost absurd degree of accuracy and quantity. This is because “the early church fathers- men of the second and third centuries such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and others- quoted the New Testament so much (36,289 times to be exact) that all but eleven verse can be constructed just from their quotations”* (Geisler).
But we don’t just have their quotes, do we? We have have a ridiculous amount of manuscripts to glean from. The ancient documents by Homer are still taught as an accurate rendition of history. Why do we do this when none of these autographs exist? …because of the manuscript copies. Textual critics are highly skilled in being able to determine the original text from the copies that have been handed down, and it becomes most accurate when there are a lot of copies to compare. In fact, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any other book in history. The New Testament alone has 5,686 manuscript copies for critics to look at. Compare this to the next runner-up: Homer’s Iliad which has 643 manuscripts, or Demosthenes which has 200. Should I also mention that the latest manuscripts of Homer are from half a century after the autographs they were replicating, while the New Testament manuscripts reach as far back as 25 years after their originals? If you would like to research this yourself, “Google-search” these leading world experts on textual criticism: Bruce M. Metzger, Daniel Wallace, and Bart Ehrman on the reliability and accuracy of this science.
I will not spend too much time belaboring your paragraphs asserting that Jesus is a “failed messiah,” who did not reestablish Israel. It is certainly clear between you and I that Jews and Christians have a different interpretation of Jesus. The Jews believed that the Messiah would come as a conquering King the first time, and Christians (myself) believe that Jesus will come as the conquering King the second time (Rev 1:7). Let me also add that the early Christians were all Jews who believed this and saw it in their own Scriptures, God bless them.
Lastly, I want to point out the ridiculous nature of anyone who claims the theory that Christianity started out as a power-base for the Romans to seize control. Christianity was an enemy to both Rome and to the current Jewish religious establishment, and neither cared for it to continue its existence. Rome was threatened by the Kingship of Jesus, and the Jews were threatened by the Romans destroying their establishment because of the explosive beginnings of Christianity, as well as the “blasphemies” they accused Jesus of. If this isn’t enough, consider then the implications of becoming a Christian in the first century: persecution, torture, and death, as was experienced by ALL the apostles except John, who only underwent torture. Consider also Jesus’ many instructions to forsake all to follow Him....need I go on? Ok...
If this STILL does not convince you, consider the “powerful” core-group of disciples that Jesus chose to surround Himself with, and tell me if this sounds like a winning team:
They were idiots (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16)
They were insensitive and lazy (Mark 14:32-41)
They were reprimanded by Jesus and each other (Mark 8:33; Gal 2:11)
They were spineless (Matthew 26:33-35)
They had no faith (John 2:18-22; 3:14-18; Matt 12:39-41; 17:9, 22-23; 28:17)
These don’t appear to be great things to include in my story of taking over the world through an embellished, made-up storyline. Christianity does not seem like a great way of attracting the power-hungry. In fact, Jesus Himself preached meekness as the way to inherit the earth in the Beatitudes...I do believe you can find them in the "plagiarized" Gospel of Matthew.
You’re right in saying that we should read outside of the box. That is something I have aspired to do, and I hope you will take some of these sources seriously. Most of them were referred to in the original post to back up my assertions, I just left many of them out for the purpose I stated earlier, to create an easier read for those who might not be as studious as you are. But here are your anti-Google citations (though all of this research can also be found and properly cited on Google), and several other sources that speak on the above topics. There are several evangelical scholars, yet I’ve also included scholars from the highly liberal Ivy League Universities, as well as Bart Ehrman who is an agnostic and hold some of the same beliefs as you do. However, he is one of the most respected experts in the field of textual criticism.
I’m going to continue to Google, because at the end of my sources are usually Ph.D’s, and at the end of the day I know my Googled-sources are backed up by strong evidence. You do not have to apologize for visiting my blog, and you didn’t ruin my parade.
I do hope you will come back.
-Chris
*Roberts, Mark. Can We Trust The Gospels? Good News Publishers: Illinois, 2007. pg 66
*Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. Crossway Books: Illinois, 2004. Pg 228.
See also:
Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart Ehrman. The Text of The New Testament. Oxford University Press, New York: 2005.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Zondervan, Michigan: 2007
-spoke out in her language...check
-used resources that are credible to her...check
-spoke about Jesus...check
-spoke in humility and gentleness...check
-slow to speak [1 day 5 hours and 2 minutes after]...check
=] =] this makes me pray <3
Absolutely loved this comment and rebuttal. Very well done!
Post a Comment