Does Jesus = the Egyptian Sun God? Fact or Fiction?

[Arcesious]

Note, I'm entirely sceptical of this at this point.

 

Anyways I've been wondering for awhile, are the claims in the Zeitgeist movies about Jesus and Christianity being connected to Egyptian Gods and older religions true?

 

This is more in detail about the subject: http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

^

^

^

I admit I haven't actually browsed much of this site.

 

At first, I accepted these claims in the Zeitgeist movie due to naivety, the same time at which I actually fell for the 911 Conspiracy Theory crap, about two months ago. I've also recently seen the Addendum...

 

I've heard the claims, but is there evidence? If this can be debunked, then so be it. I'm just following my sceptical instincts because I want the facts.

[Achilles]

Yikes.

 

My advice? Forget "proof" and instead focus on "reasonable doubt". Also, don't focus exclusively on Egyptian mythology. Instead look for similarities to all existing mythologies from the time period in which early christianity was getting it's feet beneath it.

 

See if you can find The Power of Myth and/or The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. Also, check out Lord Raglan's Scale. Lastly, check out The God Who Wasn't There (if you can find it).

 

One last word of advice: 99.999% of those that will tell you that there are no similarities are going to be christians. This means that they have a bias and/or an agenda. Consider their arguments with this in mind. Do your own research. Take a look at what you find with an open mind and healthy sense of skepticism. And keep in mind what I said about "proof" vs "reasonable doubt"

[Arcesious]

Yikes.

 

My advice? Forget "proof" and instead focus on "reasonable doubt". Also, don't focus exclusively on Egyptian mythology. Instead look for similarities to all existing mythologies from the time period in which early christianity was getting it's feet beneath it.

 

See if you can find The Power of Myth and/or The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. Also, check out Lord Raglan's Scale. Lastly, check out The God Who Wasn't There (if you can find it).

 

One last word of advice: 99.999% of those that will tell you that there are no similarities are going to be christians. This means that they have a bias and/or an agenda. Consider their arguments with this in mind. Do your own research. Take a look at what you find with an open mind and healthy sense of skepticism. And keep in mind what I said about "proof" vs "reasonable doubt"

 

But is it reasonable doubt or is it wishful thinking?

[Achilles]

Wishful thinking implies desired outcome. If you are doing your own research without a desired outcome (except maybe drawing the best conclusion the evidence presents), then "wishful thinking" would seem to be a non-issue, no?

[Arcesious]

Wishful thinking implies desired outcome. If you are doing your own research without a desired outcome (except maybe drawing the best conclusion the evidence presents), then "wishful thinking" would seem to be a non-issue, no?

 

Well if this stuff on the website I linked is true, then my agenda is to use what is said there as a source of ammo in religion debates... I just don't want to make the mistake of making such claims if they can be disproven by knowledgable Christians.

[Achilles]

Again, it's not a matter of "proof". It's a matter of reasonable doubt.

 

Same thing with happens in the court system when a prosecutor tries to establish someone's motive for doing something. He or she can't "prove" that the defendant was thinking or feeling X, but they can show all the reasons why the defendant might have thought or felt X. It's then up to the jury to determine whether the argument is reasonable or not. You're not going to be able to establish "proof" in the context you're using it.

 

The problem that you're going to have here is that christians have a vested interest in not believing that the jesus myth is not unique (see: willful ignorance). Therefore you're going to run head-first into a biased audience that has a clear motivation not to be objective.

 

The best you can do is study the history anyway and present your arguments as you care to. Do so knowing that while you won't be able to reach "true believers", your case might be persuasive to those that have doubts, are persuaded by reason, or haven't committed themselves to religious dogmatism.

[Yar-El]

^^^^^^^^^^

Ultimately agree with you. Its hard to get hardcore believers to consider other possibilities. Achillies has some good adivce. Your going to face a oposition of fundamental thinkers; thus, the only other way is to create a sense of doubt. I tried in the past to do something similar; however, I never have been able to make the case. Many Christians are stuck in a bubble; nevertheless, don't be discouraged by the sudden flux of opposition.

[Achilles]

thus, the only other way is to create a sense of doubt.

Not what I was saying at all.

 

"True Believers" have devised a system whereby belief in the face of doubt and/or evidence is rewarded (it's called "faith"). Helping to inform and providing sound reasoning for those that are not True Believers is a little different. And sometimes this is accomplished by debating True Believers, even though you know they won't hear you.