[voodoo]

Here is a.. documentary (?).. about the Jesus myth. A friend of mine pointed this out to me and told me it was very entertaining. It was.

Sometimes I smiled, sometimes I frowned, but most of the time I wondered if this was real or a parody of some sort. Each segment is about 10 minutes long and claims to give facts about the lies contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

I don't know how old this is or who made this, but it seems fairly old. Like from the 90s. Entertaining, yes. Stupid, immensely.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

After watching this I am still not sure about how serious this is. History is mixed up, speculation is treated as facts and the etymology is fantastically wrong.

I am putting this up for entertainment and discussion value, this video is highly entertaining for atheists, Christians and Jews alike - not to mention Buddhists and Hindus. Enjoy the gripping tale about the lies of religion!

For some reason, perhaps because it didn't fit the agenda of the authors, Islam is never mentioned.

I'm particularily miffed about the awful etymology. Things like claiming/implying sun=son, ray comes from the Egyptian god Ra, Solomon is the word 'sun' in three different languages (Spanish among them!), Israel is from Isis+Ra+El (three words for gods) etc.

Enjoy!

V

[voodoo]

Well, I thought it was entertaining! I hardly agree with a single claim made in the documentary, but it was fun to watch non-the-less.

It sums up most of the arguments on of the atheists who have been posting here and is full of the smugness found with some of them.

Mushroom hallucinated astrology. That's our religion and it doesn't matter what our religion is. Silly for sure, but I like the underlying arrogance of the presenters in that documentary.

So, while I think it is crap and full of itself, I think it was funny and worth an hour to see how much the atheists are off track. And arrogant as hell about it too.

V

[Lucky_Num1]

I find it interesting that no matter how much evidence is offered ... Christians simply are not basing their reality on the truth. The truth is ... Jesus never existed and these videos just go to provide evidence of that. When you base your life on faith ... you are ignorant of the truth. The truth is ... Jesus never existed. Jesus is nothing more than the solar sun god ... created from ancient myth. You are willing to believe that Jesus was born from a virgin, that Eve talked to a snake, that Jesus returned from the dead ... all funny things that could never happen ... yet you turn your head away from the truth.

I believe in God. I do not worship Jesus Christ ... because Jesus is not God, Jesus is a myth. In my mind ... Christians are atheists ... because they worship a man which is a false idol. Christ is a false idol. God is not a man. Man wanted God to be a man .. but God is God. If you worship the trinity ... you are not worshipping God. You are worshipping a false idol. Same is true for Islam. Please open your eyes and minds to the truth.

Lucky on U4Prez

[Tiresias]

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

[lpkmckenna]

Sad. This video makes DaVinci Code look like hard scholarship.

I'm not sure how it's possible for the Mediterranean mystery religions to have influenced Christianity. After all, we're still not entirely sure what went on during the secret rites of the Mithras or Eleusinian cults.

There's a simpler explanation for the similarities of Christian and pagan religions: religions are designed to tackle the same basic issues, like the afterlife. Not surprisingly, the proposed answers are similar. Duh.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Try this: YouTube - The Truth About The Jesus Myth Part 1

[Chongo]

For some reason, perhaps because it didn't fit the agenda of the authors, Islam is never mentioned.

I agree, where's the " The Truth About The Mohamed Myth" video? (or Buddha, Krishna, Vishnu, Confucius....)

They should look into Sai Baba Sathya Sai Baba

[Chongo]

A year before he was assassinated, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland
A year before he was assassinated, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe

[goMac]

Whether or not Jesus really existed, there's a lot of evidence that most of Christianity is a sham. We'll leave out the Council of Nicea, where the Church actually voted on making Jesus divinity (this is all historically documented, even by the church itself). But there is a ridiculous amount of similarity of accounts of Jesus to the legend of Mithras. Christmas was even put on the same day as Mithras' feast day.

QI (a great series on BBC) did a nice little number on this:
YouTube - QI - Christmas, Christianity and Mithras

(For the record, I didn't watch the video, so I have no idea what they mentioned)

[Chongo]

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Birthday of Jesus

Scholars have known for a long time the birth of Jesus occurred in the spring. The 25th of December was chosen to usurp the Saturnalia along with other pagan festivals that took place around the winter solstice

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by goMac 

We'll leave out the Council of Nicea, where the Church actually voted on making Jesus divinity (this is all historically documented, even by the church itself).

The Arian controversy had nothing to do with Jesus' divinity.

Originally Posted by goMac 

But there is a ridiculous amount of similarity of accounts of Jesus to the legend of Mithras. Christmas was even put on the same day as Mithras' feast day.

Both Mithras and Jesus had Saturnalia chosen for their birthdays. One didn't copy the other. Both groups picked a popular festival date. (If you could pick your own birthdate, would you chose a weekend or workday?)

Originally Posted by goMac 

QI (a great series on BBC) did a nice little number on this:
YouTube - QI - Christmas, Christianity and Mithras

(For the record, I didn't watch the video, so I have no idea what they mentioned)

Should I bother watching this BBC series, given the clearly retarded set of facts you've chosen from it?

Speaking as an athiest: if you're going to criticize religion, make sure it's a criticism based on facts. Otherwise, you make fellow critics look bad.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Arian controversy had nothing to do with Jesus' divinity.

Are you denying that the Nicene Creed settled a very contentious debate among the early Christians on that topic?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by goMac 

QI (a great series on BBC) did a nice little number on this:
YouTube - QI - Christmas, Christianity and Mithras

Oh yeah, lots of hard scholarship taking place on this comedy show.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you denying that the Nicene Creed settled a very contentious debate among the early Christians on that topic?

The Arian doctrine was that Jesus and the Father are separate beings (with Jesus being kind of a sub-god spawned by the Father), not that Jesus isn't divine.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you denying that the Nicene Creed settled a very contentious debate among the early Christians on that topic?

No. I haven't stopped beating my wife either.

Both the orthodox view and the Arian view was: Jesus is God. The debate was largely one of wording and semantics. Both sides advocated a view that Jesus was The Word, and it is thru/with The Word that God the Father created the world. But Arius didn't believe The Word was eternally co-existent with God the Father, but was a created being. Arius was still a trinitarian.

The Arian controversy had nothing to do with Jesus' divinity, but was a debate about what terminology like Logos and God the Son actually meant.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Oh yeah, lots of hard scholarship taking place on this comedy show.

Actually it's a trivia show. Well... I use that term loosely. There isn't very much compition. It's very British in that they just mostly talk about obscure facts, such as the Jesus/Mithras connection. Regardless, they aren't just making their stuff up.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Both the orthodox view and the Arian view was: Jesus is God. The debate was largely one of wording and semantics. Both sides advocated a view that Jesus was The Word, and it is thru/with The Word that God the Father created the world. But Arius didn't believe The Word was eternally co-existent with God the Father, but was a created being. Arius was still a trinitarian.

That's not exactly true. There were three factions fighting. One argued that Jesus and God were the same. Another argued that Jesus and God were alike but not the same, and the third argued that Jesus was just a man. It wasn't actually until the Romans entered into Christianity that the whole idea of Jesus as divinity came about (probably because of their pagan history). Jesus's original followers believed that he was a man.

[Big Mac]

goMac's post expresses my understanding of the subject. I think you're forgetting about the Ebionites. And, much as I hate to anger my Christian friends and allies, the trinitarian belief was of purely Roman origin.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by goMac 

That's not exactly true. There were three factions fighting. One argued that Jesus and God were the same. Another argued that Jesus and God were alike but not the same, and the third argued that Jesus was just a man. It wasn't actually until the Romans entered into Christianity that the whole idea of Jesus as divinity came about (probably because of their pagan history). Jesus's original followers believed that he was a man.

Oh, is that so? And who were these advocates against Jesus' divinity who participated in the council? Got any names?

And do you have any references for the "actual" beliefs of Jesus' original followers?

In truth, "the Romans" became "involved" in Christianity very early, since Paul was a Roman Jew. The Bible also mentions Roman followers of Jesus, for instance a centurion.

I'm not sure what motivates you to believe the Romans were the corrupters of Christianity. Do you find it hard to believe that a bunch of Jews would stray from their monotheism? Why? The Jewish Bible mentions Jews straying from God many times, all on their own.

[Big Mac]

You said it, lp, Paul was a Roman Jew who was apparently heavily influenced by Roman mythology and culture. But back to the main topic, can you find anything in Paul's writings that confirm trinitarian belief? Anything in the gospels? I don't think so.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

goMac's post expresses my understanding of the subject. I think you're forgetting about the Ebionites. And, much as I hate to anger my Christian friends and allies, the trinitarian belief was of purely Roman origin.

Talking about "Ebionites" can be difficult, because that was often used as a blanket term by orthodox Christians for any movement seeking to retain Jewish ritual practices. For instance, some with link the Ebionites with the Church of Jerusalem under James the Just, but this link can't be supported. With certainly, James wanted to maintain Jewish ritual practices, but there's no evidence he opposed Jesus' divinity.

Were there some movements that opposed Jesus' divinity but nevertheless considered themselves Christians. Sure. But they were tiny fringe groups. They'd have to be: since Jesus obviously didn't fill the shoes of the Jewish Messiah, why would these Jewish groups care about him? He's just another preacher in a sea of preachers. If he's not the Messiah, and he's not the Son of God, who would care other than a couple of crazies?

Putting aside all that, my own view is that Christianity is the product of Hellenized Jews from the region of Galilee. (Of course, much of Judaism was becoming Hellenized by this point.) The Bible developed under the influence of Greek philosophy, especially Neopythagoreans and Platonists, as well as the Jewish apocalyptic thinking seen in recent stuff like Daniel. All the virgin birth / son of God stuff is clearly inherited from Zoroastrianism, which speaks of three virgin-born saviours. This thinking was absorbed by the Jews during the Babylonian captivity and later. The Jewish concept of a Messiah was also Zoroastrian in origin. EDIT: the Zoroastrian influence on Christianity is alluded to by the visit of the three Magi (ie, Zoroastrian priests).

Discussing Roman influence on Christianity before the 4th century is just silly. It's only purpose is to stoke conspiracy theories about the Vatican and sell low-brow books about codes and other junk.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by goMac 

QI (a great series on BBC) did a nice little number on this:
YouTube - QI - Christmas, Christianity and Mithras

i love this! great show, thanks for the link

also i wonder if the song, age of aquarius/let the sun shine was based on this "ages" thing

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Try this: YouTube - The Truth About The Jesus Myth Part 1

Well in this video there's a lot of completely made up stuff. Are these videos suppose to be a joke that I just don't get?

Right in the beginning some professor says Dalai Lama means "God's Lamb". It actually means Ocean [of knowledge] Teacher.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Talking about "Ebionites". . .

Interesting claims, lp, although I disagree with much of what you wrote. The Christian Bible was not a product of Jewish minds, despite its Jewish trappings. There was a dispute over the question of divinity that did not get definitively settled until Roman adoption of Christianity and Nicea. You're right to recognize that there was no reason for Jewish groups to care about a failed messianic preacher, but in that case it doesn't make sense for you to simultaneously contend that Christianity was the product of Jews. The gospels don't even carry Jewish names; all the writings were originally in Greek, not even Aramaic, let alone Hebrew.

As for your contention that Jewish belief in a future anointed king (Messiah) who would restore the Jewish people can be attributed to the Babylonian Exile, that's demonstrably false. In Genesis you can look at the prophecy of Jacob recognizing the kingship of Judah. We are promised in Deuteronomy that we will be exiled for a long time, and then once we repent as a nation God will restore us to our land in peace. David is promised an eternal dynasty, and throughout the Prophets we are told of our future king, the righteous shoot of David who will reign in peace and restore Israel. Such belief is one of the foundations of Judaism, I assure you.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The gospels don't even carry Jewish names; all the writings were originally in Greek, not even Aramaic, let alone Hebrew.

They were done in Greek, because a lot of Jewish scholarship was in Greek at that time. The Jews themselves translated their scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint) a couple of centuries previous. (Some of that Hellenization I referred to.)

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There was a dispute over the question of divinity that did not get definitively settled until Roman adoption of Christianity and Nicea.

The only reason it becomes "definitely settled" is because doctrine becomes a matter of law at that point. There are no examples of church figures disputing Jesus' divinity that I'm aware of. If you have examples of pre-Nicene dissenters with such views, I love to hear it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for your contention that Jewish belief in a future anointed king (Messiah) who would restore the Jewish people can be attributed to the Babylonian Exile, that's demonstrably false.

The Jewish Bible is probably little older than the captivity. The canon wasn't firmly establish until after the return.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Well in this video there's a lot of completely made up stuff. Are these videos suppose to be a joke that I just don't get?

The joke is on the people who actually believe it.

[Sky Captain]

So where are the screaming masses of Christians rioting and killing over these videos?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Jewish Bible is probably little older than the captivity. The canon wasn't firmly establish until after the return.

A claim that is preposterous on its face. You think the Kingdom of Judah was taken to Babylon empty handed (not even the Torah, right?) and then somehow returned with all that text and an entire nation attesting to the truth held therein? All that varied text representing thousands of years of history? Shouldn't all of it have been in Aramaic like Daniel if that were the case? Thanks for playing.

[Chongo]

dead sea scrolls

[ebuddy]

It is claimed that Christianity stems from Mithraism in some form or fashion. There are a couple of problems with this supposition. I'll preface what I say by reiterating that if your eyes are moving to and fro for evidence against Christianity, conclusions can and will be filtered by presupposition. If we presuppose Christianity is a fallacy, we may easily see connections that challenge the evolution of it. If we presuppose the authenticity of Christianiy, these connections are not nearly as clear.

There exists to date, no substantial connection between the two Mithraic traditions in terms of their actual beliefs. One dates from 700-1400 BC and the other dates from the 1st century AD. The former is a construct of ancient Persia. The later seems little more than the adopting of the gods' names. The most common understanding in regard to Mithras suggests that the Romans founded their version of Mithraism in response to the astrological discovery of the precession of the equinoxes. The dominant notion is that the Persian name of Mithras was given to the god who the Romans believed orchestrated this movement.

- Jesus' birthdate is understood by Christians as being entirely unknown and most know that December 25th was chosen to bastardize pagan festivals in changing hearts and minds. Regardless of what you think of this motive, it worked.

- Per Mithraic tradition, there was no virgin birth, but birth fully grown from a rock leaving a cavity behind.

- Mithras a great traveling teacher? Okay, but pretty loose by most standards and could include anyone from Jesus and Muhammed, to Al Gore and Tony Snow.

- Mithras offered eternal life? Okay, but what about the other religions? Why single out Christianity?

- Mithras gave his own life for mankind? Not really. Some have implied that the bull and Mithras were one in the same, but an easier interpretation of these events holds that Mithras was actually victorious over the bull and deemed heroic for this feat.

Of course none of this matters because to date, none of the supposed connections between Mithras and Jesus apply to the Persian Mithra, only the Roman Mithraic tradition which dates after the time of the New Testament.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

All that varied text representing thousands of years of history?

More like 300 hundred years. Everything before Ezra is mostly legendary. Myself, I think David and Solomon are mythic distortions on par with King Arthur, and events like the Egyptian enslavement are complete fiction.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Shouldn't all of it have been in Aramaic like Daniel if that were the case?

I can't see why.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Talking about "Ebionites" can be difficult, because that was often used as a blanket term by orthodox Christians for any movement seeking to retain Jewish ritual practices.

To be fair, all the original Christians wanted to retain original Jewish practices. It wasn't until around 80 AD when the Jews actually forced the early Christians out of the Synagogue that Christianity really became it's own thing.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

More like 300 hundred years. Everything before Ezra is mostly legendary. Myself, I think David and Solomon are mythic distortions on par with King Arthur, and events like the Egyptian enslavement are complete fiction.

Despite all the proof to the contrary? Whatever you want to believe to make your atheism more comfortable. . .

I can't see why.

You're saying some cabal of Jewish leaders in the Exile fabricated all the texts. I'm just taking what you've claimed to its irrational conclusion.

Originally Posted by goMac 

To be fair, all the original Christians wanted to retain original Jewish practices. It wasn't until around 80 AD when the Jews actually forced the early Christians out of the Synagogue that Christianity really became it's own thing.

I don't think "all" is all that accurate, and I don't think early Christians were all that integrated in synagogues. I'd also say 80 is too late in talking about the divergence because I think that can be credited to Paul and his quest to win over the non-Jew.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by goMac
To be fair, all the original Christians wanted to retain original Jewish practices. It wasn't until around 80 AD when the Jews actually forced the early Christians out of the Synagogue that Christianity really became it's own thing.
I don't think "all" is all that accurate, and I don't think early Christians were all that integrated in synagogues. I'd also say 80 is too late in talking about the divergence because I think that can be credited to Paul and his quest to win over the non-Jew.

That was part of the overall question do Gentile and pagan converts need to be circumcised etc.
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think "all" is all that accurate, and I don't think early Christians were all that integrated in synagogues. I'd also say 80 is too late in talking about the divergence because I think that can be credited to Paul and his quest to win over the non-Jew.

I'm sure it was gradual. Records show that the Jewish leadership had begun to pressure the Christians to leave much earlier, trying a few different strategies. But IIRC it wasn't until around 80 AD that they finally put their foot down and stopped playing around.

I don't think the Christian leadership like the Apostles were all that integrating into the Synagogues, but the normal Christian populace? Remember, Jesus was not a proponent of separating from the Jewish church. It's not like the day after Jesus died everyone just started building their own churches. Early Christianity was just stacked on top of Judaism. Early Christians would attend Synagogue, and then have their own small meetings afterwards. After all, the only difference between Judaism and Christianity at that point was that they believed Jesus was a prophet.

IMO Jesus was most likely a political reformer, not a man acting as divinity. It's tough to define him as a political leader and not a religious leader, in since the two were so intertwined in Israel in Jesus's time. But if you look at most of what he preached, it was mostly about laws and leadership. Jesus seemed to be in favor of lightening the strict Jewish law that was practiced at that time. In hindsight, this makes a lot of sense. I think a lot of the stuff that tied Jesus to divinity was probably written quite a while after his death.

Here's another way to look at it. If Martin Luther King was alive today, and you asked him if he feels God made him with the purpose of sending him here to create a better world for blacks, I'm sure he'd agree with you. In the same manner, if you asked Jesus if his purpose given to him by God is to make Israel a better place, I'm sure he'd agree with you. Does this mean Martin Luther King is divinity? No. The same is true of Jesus. Just because Jesus could have said God sent him on a mission, that does not mean Jesus is divinity.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Lucky_Num1 

I find it interesting that no matter how much evidence is offered ... Christians simply are not basing their reality on the truth. The truth is ... Jesus never existed and these videos just go to provide evidence of that. When you base your life on faith ... you are ignorant of the truth.

Jesus most certainly existed as a person. The Romans kept very good records.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Lucky_Num1 

I find it interesting that no matter how much evidence is offered ... Christians simply are not basing their reality on the truth. The truth is ... Jesus never existed and these videos just go to provide evidence of that.

I wont even go into the fact how these videos are full of FUD and just plain all out spins. We all know you'll believe what you want. And pretty much this post you made was for yourself more than anyone else.

You can believe Jesus wasn't the son of God and all that Jazz, but to claim he didn't even exist shows lack of simple knowledge that makes me question your entire post.

Regardless of what you "think" or "feel" he did indeed exist. His existence has been mentioned in just more than the BIble. And they pretty much go along with what the Bible tells us as far as what happened.

As far as there being evidence that Jesus did not exist. There is no such evidence.

So I'd say you have FAITH that Jesus didn't exist. Because the facts surely don't point to that.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Jesus most certainly existed as a person. The Romans kept very good records.

Indeed.

[Chongo]

The atheist quest to prove Jesus does not exist = heaven does not exist; if no heaven, no hell, then no consequences for my actions/inactions.

Would you rather live among people that tell you you will go to hell if you don't repent (Judeo-Christians), or people that will send you to hell for being an infidel (Muslims)?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Would you rather live among people that tell you you will go to hell if you don't repent (Judeo-Christians), or people that will send you to hell for being an infidel (Muslims)?

I choose option three: to live in a free country.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I choose option three: to live in a free country.

We have a free country.
You are free believe or not to believe, now. If organizations like C.A.I.R have there way and sharia law is enforced, you will have your three choices, but not the ones the want. Convert, die, or live as an heavily oppressed, heavily taxed underclass. Christians and Jews are not the ones you need to be worried about

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Jesus most certainly existed as a person. The Romans kept very good records.

oh? can you point to one?

jesus did exist. but he was a hippie

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You are free believe or not to believe, now. If organizations like C.A.I.R have there way and sharia law is enforced, you will have your three choices, but not the ones the want. Convert, die, or live as an heavily oppressed, heavily taxed underclass. Christians and Jews are not the ones you need to be worried about

abe?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I choose option three: to live in a free country.

When you find one of those, let us know.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

jesus did exist. but he was a hippie

meaning anti-establishment, yes.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

meaning anti-establishment, yes.

no, i mean hippie

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

no, i mean hippie

A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.

Seems to fit the term "anti-establishment" to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Seems to fit the term "anti-establishment" to me.

You must understand, ironknee has no one else to argue with.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

oh? can you point to one?

The Straight Dope: Did Jesus really exist? And what's with the Shroud of Turin?

Did Jesus really exist? Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Jesus most certainly existed as a person. The Romans kept very good records.

Eh? Not that good. Perhaps you're thinking of the Nazis? There are no contemporaneous Roman records of Jesus - not that I don't think he existed, but the evidence doesn't come from Rome.

[Kevin]

"Tactitus was a Roman historian who wrote the following about Christians in 112 AD, regarding the fire in Rome during Nero’s reign. He lived from 55-120 AD and was known as the "greatest historian of ancient Rome.""

"Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."