Crucifixion was a very common practice in Roman times so there would have to be no allegory for it they just used what they knew at the time. The same way if the story was made in the dark ages it would likely be hanging or beheading.
But who said there was? I don’t understand? I have never heard an atheist say that the crucifixion part of the Jesus myth was based on an earlier myth.
Seems weird though you are fixating on the manner of the death rather than anything else. Strange. I know nothing about Zeitgeist and have not listened to a word Bill Maher said for at least a decade so that may be why. There is certain things in the Jesus myth that are definitely not original though, Virgin Birth being the obvious example. https://amp.smh.com.au/national/there-s-nothing-new-about-virgin-births-just-ask-plato-20191225-p53mui.html
The zeitgeist documentary added some stuff to the parallels of mythras and Jesus. Most people here who know zeitgeist don't like it (anymore). It got hyped but debunked pretty soon.
You wrote
>they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology.
That is simply untrue and I pointed out exactly why. You are comparing people who question the reality around them with people who question whether a made up god was killed in a specific way. So get that lazy comparison out of here.
Still, I would not say that "no sources confirming a claim" is equal to *mountains of data explicitly falsifying a claim*.
I'm not going to downvote anything here. I believe you're here in good faith, so to speak. But, I don't think that Zeitgeist is quite as God-awful as young earth creationism. It's not even close.
I'm not suggesting anything in it is true.
I'm suggesting that "thing one is false because of lack of evidence" and "thing two is false because there are mountains of evidence overwhelmingly proving it to be false" are not equal.
So, Zeitgeist being simply false for lack of proof is not as mind-bogglingly stupid as something like young earth creationism which has tons of active evidence against it.
That's all I'm claiming. I'm not saying either has any truth. I'm stating that one is a much stupider than the other. There are degrees of stupid.
> I can't all it out as stupid? Why not?
Not what they said.
They said the level of stupid is not equal as you stated here
>>they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology
Your reading comprehension is not impressing me. Let's try this another way. I have to invent terms for this. I hope they will be clear.
---
Zeitgeist is *plausibly false*.
We know that mythologies evolve over time. We know that the great god Yahweh evolved from the earlier [deity El.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_\(deity\)) We know that the Christian Old Testament evolved from the Hebrew Bible with subtle but significant changes.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html
We know that Christianity claims that Yahweh is now a trinity of Yahweh/God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. So, the Christian God evolved from the Jewish God.
The idea of mythologies evolving over time, including the mythology of Christianity, is therefore a *plausible* claim.
**Zeitgeist's claims have no merit.**
But, they are *plausible*. They are false but not ludicrous.
---
Young Earth Creationism is *implausibly false*.
It's a ludicrous claim. It's so false that it's [literally laughable and the subject of humor.](https://www.theonion.com/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-world-1819571221)
One cannot reasonably even consider the possibility that God created the earth after agriculture was invented. One cannot reasonably even consider that the earth is younger than the artifacts we have found on it.
---
Do you see why they are radically different?
One has obvious proof against it that any self-respecting moron can comprehend. The other merely has no support for its claims.
Correct! And, you'd even be about a third right. I'm not a CIA agent. I'm here to confirm your post, as noted in my top level reply.
But, I'm definitely here to promote atheism. And, that would include discrediting Christianity, which may be a less ludicrous claim than young earth creationism but is still provably false.
Click through if you dare.
[My own argument against Christianity and Judaism along the way](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/196medx/my_own_argument_against_christianity_and_judaism/)
You're welcome to have a discussion there or here as you see fit. But, stay within the rules of my subreddit and don't proselytize there.
You'll get more readers here. My sub is pretty small.
Why would there be? Crucifixion was a specifically Roman invention that they used for torture and executions. You aren't going to find Pagan stories, for instance, where crucifixion specifically is mentioned.
> The stuff you see on the lame Zeitgeist conspiracy theory documentary? Almost entirely made up garbage.
To even call that steaming pile of shit a documentary is giving it more credit than it deserves.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zeitgeist
I had a debate about this in 2008 and also learned that Zeitgeist is a very poor source. I modified my old blog post at that time to note that I had been proven wrong and left the post up since it had already sparked some debate.
[Here's my post from 2008 complete with the discussion about it, just in case anyone cares.](https://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/horus-vs-jesus/)
Note that my blog is now defunct. So, it's probably best not to comment there.
Hmmm, I can't recall an atheist saying crucifixion has origins in other mythologies. Can you link some threads where this has occurred?
>99% of the whole "pagan parallels" with Jesus are complete nonsense.
You've cited one (crucifixion). You already agreed that there are pagan origins for resurrection. Virgin birth is also well represented with Remulus and Romulus, Ra, Horus, Attis (interestingly, born on December 25th) and Krishna, just for starters. You may want to revisit your percentages.
>The stuff you see on the lame Zeitgeist conspiracy theory documentary?
For those of us who don't know what you're referring to, what are you referring to?
>Half the time I hear atheists talk about these parallels, they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology.
I'd love to see some real world quotes rather than have to rely on your assertion. I might agree with you if the appropriate evidence is provided.
ETA, Horus was also supposedly born on Dec. 25.
>Can't find anything anywhere from a pre-Christian source...
I'm curious why that matters. I'm guessing there's a conspiracy in there to discredit xtianity, but I'd love for you to explain.
I'm also curious why you didn't engage any of my other points. Are you here in good faith?
>As for your other points, I don't even really see how they matter for what I'm challenging
I'm not sure which points you're referring to? Asking for a link to the Zeitgeist thing? Challenging your 99% hyperbole?
>Where is your source for that?
Plutarch.
*“For this reason also it is said that Isis, when she perceived that she was pregnant, put upon herself an amulet on the sixth day of the month Phaophi; and about the time of the winter solstice she gave birth to Harpocrates, imperfect and premature, amid the early flowers and shoots.”*
Is that exactly December 25th? No, but Winter Solstice makes sense and I don't have a reason to discredit Plutarch as he's certainly pre-xtian. Many other pagan religions had celebrations regarding the Solstice. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that there's a general understanding amongst the non-religious that the Pagan Solstice (Saturnalia) was a good point to attach the birth of jc to as the locals were already celebrating it.
>Early Christians didn't even care about December 25th.
You've moved your goalposts, and early xtians absolutely cared about Saturnalia, as it was still being celebrated in their region.
>Plutarch is a fine reference, but doesn't really address what I had mentioned before
Put those goalposts on wheels, because what you said was
>We can start with your claim that Horus was supposedly born on December 25th if you'd like. Where is your source for that?
FWIW, you're griping about being downvoted. It's not due to what you're saying, it's your antagonistic approach, hyperbole, argumentum ad populum fallacy, and--as pointed out earlier in my comment--the shifting or your goalposts.
Every religion and deity is an evolution & melding of some earlier set of beliefs. The entire concept of "gods", and "sons of gods" was passed down through cultures as they traded, warred and conquered each other. To say there is no connection between these cultures is just as wrong as saying there is a direct connection.
So because you don’t like all the comparisons to Jesus you’re mad?
Are you a believer or an atheist that doesn’t like bad arguments? None of those comparisons prove or disprove that Jesus existed.
Edited for fat thumb
Atheism is silent on pagan god comparisons, so your complaint is misguided and better aimed at those who espouse the very real idea that religious mythologies often cross-contaminate gods, rituals and fables. It's all nonsense all the time in the world of mysticism, so don't sweat it.
I can give you a thread that proves atheists are not silent on stamp collecting but what's the point? There are no topics atheists are silent on. The Venne diagram of topics atheists are not silent on, and the list of topics, is a perfect circle. I think you may be confusing atheists who coincidentally are interested in the pagan origins of a given set of religious myths, with atheism itself.
There are certainly parallels with pre-Christian mythology. Yes, some of the pagan comparisons are a bit of a stretch, but Dionysus, for example, turned water into wine according to the Greek myths. And other Greek gods are described as performing miracles that are usually attributed to Jesus, such as healing the sick, raising the dead and walking on water. So these ideas did not originate with Christianity.
You're gatekeeping because you're telling atheists what they can or can't believe.
One can have a respect for historical (or mythological) accuracy and still be arrogant. I believe you to possess both of those qualities.
Except the only examples you've provided are Bill Maher and a completely discredited documentary. Where is the evidence of all these atheists that are wrong, or is it simply argumentum ad populum?
Jesus’ crucified represents the abrahamic gods ending of many agricultural pagan deities. The use of the spear, crown, wine cup, wheel, hammer, and sword are all parallels to these. You could deduce that Jesus is actually the first “saint” of many.
If one does research on pagan deities vs demonology vs Christian saints, the names, roles, qualities and behaviors of each show that; Jesus and saints were created to assimilate and subjugate pagans that refused to convert. Which was all of them.
This was important because agricultural pagans were so skilled in farming and knowledgeable of the changing of seasons/ weather that it was a much better investment to allow them to keep practice of most of their deities albeit under new names and under new rules.
Demons and their names/qualities are mostly based on pagan deities that were associated with death, winter, underground and caves, large bodies of or deep water, women, also spirits and even tribal warriors, leaders, priests of any standing were also demonized.
Saints largely are based on deities and spirits that are associated with spring, summer, life, flowing water, the sun, moon, agriculture, and also based on military leaders/ clergy that “liberated” pagans from their heathen ways. No, Jesus was definitely not stolen from paganism. He was the first step to assimilate them & subjugate.
Is your argument really, "Crucifixion was a Roman punishment so all of the other mythologies are totally not the same because those dieties weren't crucified!"
Most of the other dieties weren't based in the Middle East, either.
It's parallels, not word-for-word replication of stories.
Odin sacrificed himself by hanging from the World Tree for - I think it was 8 days.
No other mythology has that, so that proves.... whatever your point is....
I’ve never been a big fan of that type of biblical analysis either. Making all these connections between nearby religions and greek classics on what seem like really surface level things. Something about it gives me tin foil hat vibes, I’ve only gotten rough breakdowns from the authors about their beliefs though, never read their literature.
Influence makes sense. Things like Jesus being weirdly stoic in a lot of the gospels. It doesn’t really prove anything about anything to me when anyone points out something like Osiris also rising from the dead though.
It goes to the notion that xtianity adopted pieces of other mythos, rather than being a fully formed, turnkey religion as Christians would have us believe it is.
It also goes to the notion that humanity all across the globe has come up with very similar mythos to try to explain their universe and/or exert power over their local populaces.
I love comparative religion and comparative mythology, because at a certain base level (getting a little Jungian here) it's all pretty much the same story.
>they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology. Ha, no.
[удалено]
Crucifixion was a very common practice in Roman times so there would have to be no allegory for it they just used what they knew at the time. The same way if the story was made in the dark ages it would likely be hanging or beheading.
[удалено]
Why would there be… considering crucifixion wasn’t common in those times?
[удалено]
But who said there was? I don’t understand? I have never heard an atheist say that the crucifixion part of the Jesus myth was based on an earlier myth.
[удалено]
Seems weird though you are fixating on the manner of the death rather than anything else. Strange. I know nothing about Zeitgeist and have not listened to a word Bill Maher said for at least a decade so that may be why. There is certain things in the Jesus myth that are definitely not original though, Virgin Birth being the obvious example. https://amp.smh.com.au/national/there-s-nothing-new-about-virgin-births-just-ask-plato-20191225-p53mui.html
[удалено]
The zeitgeist documentary added some stuff to the parallels of mythras and Jesus. Most people here who know zeitgeist don't like it (anymore). It got hyped but debunked pretty soon.
>In this case, yes. You are comparing willful ignorance with general ignorance. There's a clear difference that you seem to not quite understand.
[удалено]
You wrote >they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology. That is simply untrue and I pointed out exactly why. You are comparing people who question the reality around them with people who question whether a made up god was killed in a specific way. So get that lazy comparison out of here.
Still, I would not say that "no sources confirming a claim" is equal to *mountains of data explicitly falsifying a claim*. I'm not going to downvote anything here. I believe you're here in good faith, so to speak. But, I don't think that Zeitgeist is quite as God-awful as young earth creationism. It's not even close.
[удалено]
I'm not suggesting anything in it is true. I'm suggesting that "thing one is false because of lack of evidence" and "thing two is false because there are mountains of evidence overwhelmingly proving it to be false" are not equal. So, Zeitgeist being simply false for lack of proof is not as mind-bogglingly stupid as something like young earth creationism which has tons of active evidence against it. That's all I'm claiming. I'm not saying either has any truth. I'm stating that one is a much stupider than the other. There are degrees of stupid.
[удалено]
> I can't all it out as stupid? Why not? Not what they said. They said the level of stupid is not equal as you stated here >>they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology
Your reading comprehension is not impressing me. Let's try this another way. I have to invent terms for this. I hope they will be clear. --- Zeitgeist is *plausibly false*. We know that mythologies evolve over time. We know that the great god Yahweh evolved from the earlier [deity El.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_\(deity\)) We know that the Christian Old Testament evolved from the Hebrew Bible with subtle but significant changes. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/bible-basics/what-is-the-difference-between-the-old-testament-the-tanakh-and-the-hebrew-bible/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html We know that Christianity claims that Yahweh is now a trinity of Yahweh/God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. So, the Christian God evolved from the Jewish God. The idea of mythologies evolving over time, including the mythology of Christianity, is therefore a *plausible* claim. **Zeitgeist's claims have no merit.** But, they are *plausible*. They are false but not ludicrous. --- Young Earth Creationism is *implausibly false*. It's a ludicrous claim. It's so false that it's [literally laughable and the subject of humor.](https://www.theonion.com/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-world-1819571221) One cannot reasonably even consider the possibility that God created the earth after agriculture was invented. One cannot reasonably even consider that the earth is younger than the artifacts we have found on it. --- Do you see why they are radically different? One has obvious proof against it that any self-respecting moron can comprehend. The other merely has no support for its claims.
[удалено]
Correct! And, you'd even be about a third right. I'm not a CIA agent. I'm here to confirm your post, as noted in my top level reply. But, I'm definitely here to promote atheism. And, that would include discrediting Christianity, which may be a less ludicrous claim than young earth creationism but is still provably false. Click through if you dare. [My own argument against Christianity and Judaism along the way](https://www.reddit.com/r/MisanthropicPrinciple/comments/196medx/my_own_argument_against_christianity_and_judaism/) You're welcome to have a discussion there or here as you see fit. But, stay within the rules of my subreddit and don't proselytize there. You'll get more readers here. My sub is pretty small.
[удалено]
Well obviously, if the deity was sacrificed it was a false deity… so beliefs ended.
Why would there be? Crucifixion was a specifically Roman invention that they used for torture and executions. You aren't going to find Pagan stories, for instance, where crucifixion specifically is mentioned.
[удалено]
We don’t have to prove anything. You brought a half baked theory to a group of atheists. Try harder.
> The stuff you see on the lame Zeitgeist conspiracy theory documentary? Almost entirely made up garbage. To even call that steaming pile of shit a documentary is giving it more credit than it deserves. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zeitgeist
I had a debate about this in 2008 and also learned that Zeitgeist is a very poor source. I modified my old blog post at that time to note that I had been proven wrong and left the post up since it had already sparked some debate. [Here's my post from 2008 complete with the discussion about it, just in case anyone cares.](https://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/horus-vs-jesus/) Note that my blog is now defunct. So, it's probably best not to comment there.
[удалено]
Thanks!
Hmmm, I can't recall an atheist saying crucifixion has origins in other mythologies. Can you link some threads where this has occurred? >99% of the whole "pagan parallels" with Jesus are complete nonsense. You've cited one (crucifixion). You already agreed that there are pagan origins for resurrection. Virgin birth is also well represented with Remulus and Romulus, Ra, Horus, Attis (interestingly, born on December 25th) and Krishna, just for starters. You may want to revisit your percentages. >The stuff you see on the lame Zeitgeist conspiracy theory documentary? For those of us who don't know what you're referring to, what are you referring to? >Half the time I hear atheists talk about these parallels, they are about as well-informed as a young earth creationist talking about geology. I'd love to see some real world quotes rather than have to rely on your assertion. I might agree with you if the appropriate evidence is provided. ETA, Horus was also supposedly born on Dec. 25.
[удалено]
>Can't find anything anywhere from a pre-Christian source... I'm curious why that matters. I'm guessing there's a conspiracy in there to discredit xtianity, but I'd love for you to explain. I'm also curious why you didn't engage any of my other points. Are you here in good faith?
[удалено]
>As for your other points, I don't even really see how they matter for what I'm challenging I'm not sure which points you're referring to? Asking for a link to the Zeitgeist thing? Challenging your 99% hyperbole? >Where is your source for that? Plutarch. *“For this reason also it is said that Isis, when she perceived that she was pregnant, put upon herself an amulet on the sixth day of the month Phaophi; and about the time of the winter solstice she gave birth to Harpocrates, imperfect and premature, amid the early flowers and shoots.”* Is that exactly December 25th? No, but Winter Solstice makes sense and I don't have a reason to discredit Plutarch as he's certainly pre-xtian. Many other pagan religions had celebrations regarding the Solstice. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that there's a general understanding amongst the non-religious that the Pagan Solstice (Saturnalia) was a good point to attach the birth of jc to as the locals were already celebrating it.
[удалено]
>Early Christians didn't even care about December 25th. You've moved your goalposts, and early xtians absolutely cared about Saturnalia, as it was still being celebrated in their region. >Plutarch is a fine reference, but doesn't really address what I had mentioned before Put those goalposts on wheels, because what you said was >We can start with your claim that Horus was supposedly born on December 25th if you'd like. Where is your source for that? FWIW, you're griping about being downvoted. It's not due to what you're saying, it's your antagonistic approach, hyperbole, argumentum ad populum fallacy, and--as pointed out earlier in my comment--the shifting or your goalposts.
It's like arguing who is more real the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
Clearly it's Santa, he shows up at the mall every year.
Every religion and deity is an evolution & melding of some earlier set of beliefs. The entire concept of "gods", and "sons of gods" was passed down through cultures as they traded, warred and conquered each other. To say there is no connection between these cultures is just as wrong as saying there is a direct connection.
So because you don’t like all the comparisons to Jesus you’re mad? Are you a believer or an atheist that doesn’t like bad arguments? None of those comparisons prove or disprove that Jesus existed. Edited for fat thumb
Atheism is silent on pagan god comparisons, so your complaint is misguided and better aimed at those who espouse the very real idea that religious mythologies often cross-contaminate gods, rituals and fables. It's all nonsense all the time in the world of mysticism, so don't sweat it.
[удалено]
I can give you a thread that proves atheists are not silent on stamp collecting but what's the point? There are no topics atheists are silent on. The Venne diagram of topics atheists are not silent on, and the list of topics, is a perfect circle. I think you may be confusing atheists who coincidentally are interested in the pagan origins of a given set of religious myths, with atheism itself.
There are certainly parallels with pre-Christian mythology. Yes, some of the pagan comparisons are a bit of a stretch, but Dionysus, for example, turned water into wine according to the Greek myths. And other Greek gods are described as performing miracles that are usually attributed to Jesus, such as healing the sick, raising the dead and walking on water. So these ideas did not originate with Christianity.
>Okay, I know that even broaching this subject will get it downvoted into oblivion Yes, gatekeeping will get you downvoted. So will arrogance.
[удалено]
You're gatekeeping because you're telling atheists what they can or can't believe. One can have a respect for historical (or mythological) accuracy and still be arrogant. I believe you to possess both of those qualities.
[удалено]
Except the only examples you've provided are Bill Maher and a completely discredited documentary. Where is the evidence of all these atheists that are wrong, or is it simply argumentum ad populum?
Jesus’ crucified represents the abrahamic gods ending of many agricultural pagan deities. The use of the spear, crown, wine cup, wheel, hammer, and sword are all parallels to these. You could deduce that Jesus is actually the first “saint” of many. If one does research on pagan deities vs demonology vs Christian saints, the names, roles, qualities and behaviors of each show that; Jesus and saints were created to assimilate and subjugate pagans that refused to convert. Which was all of them. This was important because agricultural pagans were so skilled in farming and knowledgeable of the changing of seasons/ weather that it was a much better investment to allow them to keep practice of most of their deities albeit under new names and under new rules. Demons and their names/qualities are mostly based on pagan deities that were associated with death, winter, underground and caves, large bodies of or deep water, women, also spirits and even tribal warriors, leaders, priests of any standing were also demonized. Saints largely are based on deities and spirits that are associated with spring, summer, life, flowing water, the sun, moon, agriculture, and also based on military leaders/ clergy that “liberated” pagans from their heathen ways. No, Jesus was definitely not stolen from paganism. He was the first step to assimilate them & subjugate.
Is your argument really, "Crucifixion was a Roman punishment so all of the other mythologies are totally not the same because those dieties weren't crucified!" Most of the other dieties weren't based in the Middle East, either. It's parallels, not word-for-word replication of stories. Odin sacrificed himself by hanging from the World Tree for - I think it was 8 days. No other mythology has that, so that proves.... whatever your point is....
I’ve never been a big fan of that type of biblical analysis either. Making all these connections between nearby religions and greek classics on what seem like really surface level things. Something about it gives me tin foil hat vibes, I’ve only gotten rough breakdowns from the authors about their beliefs though, never read their literature. Influence makes sense. Things like Jesus being weirdly stoic in a lot of the gospels. It doesn’t really prove anything about anything to me when anyone points out something like Osiris also rising from the dead though.
It goes to the notion that xtianity adopted pieces of other mythos, rather than being a fully formed, turnkey religion as Christians would have us believe it is. It also goes to the notion that humanity all across the globe has come up with very similar mythos to try to explain their universe and/or exert power over their local populaces. I love comparative religion and comparative mythology, because at a certain base level (getting a little Jungian here) it's all pretty much the same story.