Long time no see.
Originally posted by scientist
As for the pagan copycat theory: I have studied various religious texts (not in their original languages, but somehow I doubt you read the bible in
it's original language, or it's first revision either, so let's call a stalemate on that one right now).
A quick note: You really don't need to read the original languages at the moment to do the research. Let's use an English translation of the Vedic
writings as an example since it serves our purposes for the moment. If you read the texts in English, you will get a whole other story regarding
Krishna- the story believed by Hindus- and not the claims that Zeitgeist makes about him. The same goes for the other figures. Let's say Zeitgeist
claims Krishna had 12 disciples. But when you read the Vedic writings (in any language) it says no such thing and a Hindu can confirm it. Same goes
for Buddha, Mithras, Zoroaster, and the other dozen or so figures Zeitgeist mentions.
It would be like you don't have to read the original Greek manuscripts to be a Christian who knows Jesus was a Jew from Israel who had 12 disciples,
was crucified, etc. The basic story will be the same. So for this intent, translations don't matter too
much except for maybe heated debate
topics like the meaning of the word virgin.
There are certainly more than just a few "generic correlations" as you call them. I would say a global flood, virgin birth, resurrection,
etc. are more than generic correlations to be expected.
First of all, I am glad you mention the global flood and the similar stories found all around the world. To me that is fascinating (however admittedly
anecdotal) evidence that possibly shows a common origin. However, that is another debate and is not here nor there at the moment as the Hebrews
believed in a world wide flood centuries before the time of Jesus. The world wide flood was not something that started with Jesus so it is irrelevant.
I love the fact there are flood stories all over the world because it makes it seem, to me, something happened all that time ago but the tales later
became distorted through time and geography. That is an argument that can go both ways though so at the moment I am just going to say the flood
account is not really related to the life of Jesus or a strictly Christian belief.
I believe there are about two or three other virgin births mentioned in pagan myths. The others, like most pagan copycat accusers attempt to do is
stretch it via word play. For instance, they will say a figure, Mithras for example, was born of a virgin. This is techincally
true until we
later find out Mithras was 'born' after emerging from solid stone. So can a rock have sex? No. Ta-da! A virgin birth. Others, Attis, for example,
was born of a virgin after she was inseminated upon an acorn falling into her lap. But then Christ mythers add dishonesty into the mix by adding
further non existent parallels into the mix that have nothing to do with Attis. Horus is another good example. In the Egyptian hyms, Horus was
described as the son of Osiris, therefore 'the son of god.' So we have a loose albeit true correlation but CM's then state he had 12 disciples,
was born of a virgin, was attended by shepherds at his birth, etc.- none of which is true. So, we can find a few correlations that I believe are based
on probability but never a slam dunk check list like the CM's claim.
Jesus taken from astrology: What you call "distortion into pagan astrology" is misleading, as paganism predates Christianity - and Christian
astrology makes use of the very same constellations and zodiac as the pagans the predated them.
Like the flood, your time lines are off.
The Mazzaroth long precedes the life of Jesus and is a very ancient belief. In fact, it is so old it
origins are shrouded in mystery because no one knows exactly how old it is. According to Hebrew tradition, it is older than Babylonian astrology even.
How old is it truly? Well, nobody knows. So again, the fact pagan astrology predates the life of Jesus isn't entirely relevant because many believe
the Mazzaroth is the legitimate original while pagan astrology is the counterfeit. Because nobody truly knows, this is a stalemate that most people
are going to decide based on their preconceived biases.
Of course, I also didn't point out the flaws Zeitgeist makes in its videos regarding the astrology and Jesus' relation to the zodiac. It had some
pretty bad errors that I mentioned in a thread a while back but didn't bother picking it apart in this thread because to me the issue of the
Mazzaroth is more important. However, like above with the CM claims, Zeitgeist takes a little bit of fact and adds in a whole lot of fiction. They
show a few things that relate to Jesus and astrology and fudge most of the rest. I believe the thread where I dissected the astrological claims of
Zeitgeist is named something like 'The Sun of God.'
Now, that being said - Christians as I understand are against astrology for the most part, and the bible would back them up
Absolutely. Christianity is anti-astrology as it is defined in paganism. However, we also believe everything God does, Satan has a counterfeit. If the
Mazzaroth is the true God-created original, as I believe, this is the holy original. We are also told the heavens declare God's glory and in Job,
believed to be the oldest book of the Bible, we see the allusion to the Mazzaroth. So you are absolutely correct- Christians are not to partake in
what we believe to be the counterfeit (astrology and fortune telling based on astrology) but some do believe God embedded his plan for salvation in
His own creation.
Thanks for the interesting thread Ashley. I wish you guys could just see this as a test of your faith as opposed to an attack on it. The
defensive approach is what attracts the pugilists like me to the conversation.
When was I defensive? Oh wait, I wasn't.
Also, this isn't my thread but... you're welcome?
Please excuse me if I am too lazy to proof read any of this. It's long and I am tired.
[edit on 8/8/2008 by AshleyD]