| Zeitgeist Rebuttal |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by John Feakes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zeitgeist Rebuttal Introduction Zeitgeist is the title of a captivating documentary which was produced in 2007 and broadcast via the internet. The 2-hour film is meant to expose the power hungry businessmen, governments and religions for what they are. That is, it is meant to open people's eyes to the reality that multitudes are being manipulated by a powerful elite, who have been responsible for some of the most unspeakable atrocities in history, all in the pursuit of wealth and power. The film throws so many quotes, headlines, and various historic facts at the viewer that one barely has time to digest them all. Much of what is shared in the film does seem to ring true. Its brief history of the Federal Reserve, the US Income Tax, engineered wars, and staged terrorist attacks document a trend which the filmmakers claim is designed to end with complete world domination. These claims seem, disturbing as it may be, pretty accurate, at least at first blush. Bible-believing Christians have noted for years that the Bible predicted a one world monetary and religious system (Revelation 13). The film rightly points out that religion has been and continues to be a great manipulator of the masses. For centuries the religious elite have indeed used their perceived authority to frighten and intimidate people into subjection. Christianity is singled out as perhaps the best known of such religions. Again, the film is absolutely correct in stating that the Roman Catholic Church has been responsible for positively heinous crimes, all in the name of Christ. The filmmakers seem genuinely interested in educating and liberating people from the very real tyranny that appears to be thriving in the world today. For this they are to be commended. Where the film goes horribly wrong, however, is in its treatment of the actual historic Jesus and the original Church that He founded. Here the filmmakers got things so terribly wrong that I feel a rebuttal is definitely in order. This article is meant to correct the flawed arguments and false claims concerning Christianity made in the film, and to erect a positive case for New Testament Christianity. Here is my list of observations / claims pretty much as they appear in the film, and my rebuttals / comments to them: 1. Evolution is a beautiful upward progression while religion causes bloodshed and war. The first five minutes of the film shows an animated depiction of the evolution of life on planet earth. It beings with a single-cell organism and we watch it grow and evolve into fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, apes, and finally people. We are then bombarded with a barrage of images of human suffering caused by war. It ends with the American flag being draped over the Bible. The message of course is that Christianity and war go hand-in-hand. We are meant to think that prior to the advent of religion, all was well in the world. Prior to this, evolution worked its beautiful magic. What a distorted image! Anyone who has studied this issue in any detail has admitted that evolution by natural selection is a horrible process. The following quotes make this abundantly clear: "thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." Charles Darwin The Origin of Species… p. 243 "The secrets of evolution are death and time – the deaths of enormous numbers of life forms that were imperfectly adapted to the environment; and time for a long succession of small mutations that were by accident adaptive, time for the slow accumulation of patterns of favorable mutations" Carl Sagon, "Cosmos", 1980, p. 30 "Evolution is a hard, inescapable mistress. There is just no room for good sportsmanship. Too many organisms are born, so, quite simply, a lot of them are going to have to die…The only thing that does matter is, whether you leave more children than the next person leaves." W.H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism" A Modern Version", in Science Magazine, March 28, 1975, p. 1169 "Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms... The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution." Jacques Monrod, "The Secret of Life," Interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Co., June 10, 1976. "Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of god to whom anyone would be inclined to pray." David L. Hull, "The God of the Galapagos," review of Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, Nature, vol. 352 (August 8, 1991), p. 486 as cited by Henry Morris p. 416. The filmmakers attempt to link Christianity with war and bloodshed while evolution is depicted as peaceful progression is really an outrage. Consider these observations: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Steven Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogony, pp. 127-128, 1977 "Mankind struggles upwards, in which millions are trampled to death, that thousands may mount on their bodies." Clara Lucas Balfour (1808-1878), quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 88 [Chapter on "Evolution"] "A direct line runs from Darwin, through the father of the eugenics movement- Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton- to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe." Martin Brookes, ‘Ripe old age', New Scientist 161(2171);41, 1999 "The German Fuhrer … has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." Evolution and Ethics 1947, Sir Arthur Keith p, 230 "As we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless and without mercy…The law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution." Sir Arthur Keith, "Evolution and Ethics", 1947, p. 15 "Darwinism helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires." Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", 1966, p. 64 "Unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to the future ones is the modus operandi of biological evolution and may be regarded as rational behavior." W.H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism" A Modern Version", in Science Magazine, March 28, 1975, p. 1169 The mantra that religion is the cause of most wars is patently false. History Professor Pat Johnson, responding to and supporting an online Christian apologetics discussion regarding war stated that when his students argue that religion has caused most wars he, "…demands that they provide dead bodies as evidence. They usually mention the Crusades and one or two other religious wars they might have heard of but in none of their examples can they come up with a million deaths…I then point out that most of the people who have died as a result of war, have done so in the Twentieth Century and that most of the killing was done in the name of secular ideologies. I then ask them who is the ‘baddest' of them all. Most guess Hilter. I then tell them that he is rated #3. Some then guess Stalin and I inform them that most scholars place him at #2 with 20 million killed. Almost no one gets #1 who, of course, is Mao who starts with an estimated 40 million. I then point out that the top two were Communists and Hiltler was a radical proponent of Social Darwinism. All these ideologies are based on atheistic systems." (Quote from Carl Tiechrib's outstanding book, "The Cult of Peace: A World Faith for World Peace?". Carl is a former UN representative, and the founder of Global Systems Research. His website is www.forcingchange.org) The filmmakers' desire to free people from oppression and death is commendable. It is inconsistent however to fault religion for causing the deaths of millions, while seeing evolution as wonderful process even though it has horribly destroyed countless billions of living things! Yes, professing Christians have committed terrible crimes in the name of Christianity, but I challenge any sceptic anywhere to find sanction for such actions within the pages of the New Testament. It cannot be done. It is inconsistent for a New Testament Christian to lie, steal and murder. On the atheist view, however, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things. The decision to murder an old lady or help her across the street is purely arbitrary. The filmmakers cannot tell us why it is wrong to manipulate or kill people, but the Christian can. This in itself does not prove Christianity true. It does however show that Christianity is at least logically consistent. 2. Hell is inconsistent with the idea of a loving God. We must first understand what hell is and what it is not. The cartoon depiction of hell as place where people are roasted in fire and tortured by demons is a horrible caricature of what the Bible says hell is. Here are some facts about hell: a. Hell was not created for people. Matthew 25:41 makes it clear that God intended hell / the lake of fire to be the place of incarceration for the devil and his demons. God does not want people to go to hell. He wants them in heaven with Him. Paul stated in 1 Timothy 2:3-4: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." b. Nowhere does the Bible say that hell is a place of torture. It is not. Hell is a place of torment. There is a profound difference. In Luke 16 we read of the rich man that went to hell. He complained about the torment he was experiencing. This was not a physical torment, but spiritual. I believe that the torment that one feels in hell may be related to the fact that these folks are locked forever in a place filled with creatures just as selfish as themselves. The Bible predicts that one day even those under the earth will bow the knee to Jesus. The means that contrary to popular depiction, Satan is not the Lord of hell, just an inmate like everyone else. God is the absolute sovereign, even over those in hell. Imagine a place where everyone is consumed by their own selfish lusts, but is helpless to fulfill them. If that's not hell for these folks, what is? c. The fire in hell is literal, but not physical. In 1 Corinthians 3 we read how that one day the Christian's works will be tested by fire. Evil deeds will be burned up, while righteous acts will not be consumed, but will merit a reward. How can our works be gathered up and burned in a physical fire? They can't. The fire is simply the fire of God's judgment. Those in hell are being tormented by the constant realization that they are under the judgment of almighty God. They are not being roasted, but they are experiencing very real torment. d.There are varying degrees of torment. Not everyone will suffer the same in hell. Jesus said that religious hypocrisy warranted a greater damnation: "Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and he highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation." Luke 20:46-47 Elsewhere Jesus commented on the "sliding scale" of the future judgement when He made this comment: "And that servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required…" Luke 12:47-48 Some may ask why it was that the ignorant servant was beaten at all. The answer is that ignorance is culpable. Anyone with half an eye can see that the creation around us requires a creator. Everyone has a conscience. We know when we've done something wrong. If we accept these truths and search for the God who can fix our sin problem the Bible assures us that we will find Him. The sad reality is that most do not accept the plain message of creation and conscience. Most suppress these truths and carry on as though they, and God, don't exist. Their ignorance of Christ and His will comes from the fact that God will not, in many cases, reveal to these folks the greater truths concerning Christ and salvation, simply because they have chosen not to acknowledge the lesser truths of creation and conscience. Why should God give these people greater truth when they've willingly ignored the lesser truths? e. Hell is fair. People like Charles Templeton and Richard Dawkins have spent many years rejecting God and His claims, and counseling multitudes to do likewise. These people wanted nothing to do with God in life. Would it really be fair to thrust them into God's heaven to be with Him for all eternity? No. Thrusting these folks into heaven would turn the place into hell. Heaven is filled with those that love God and want to be there with Him. God is not an evil tyrant. He recognizes the significance of each individual that has ever been born, even those that reject Him and His offer to save them. These folks are not threatened with annihilation, but will continue to exist forever just like those who choose to accept God's offer to save them. In both cases, people will be allowed to choose where they will spend eternity. For those unconvinced by these arguments, considered the following line of reasoning:
Earth right now is not the greatest possible world that God could have made, and the Christian is not obliged to prove that it is. Heaven is the greatest possible world, but for it to be the greatest world, it must contain people who chose to be there; people who are genuinely happy to be with God. Our world today is the realm where we are free to choose God or reject Him. Some choose to reject God and His wise laws, and live selfishly. The world hurts when this happens, but such is the price of freewill. God promises to put things right again. It sometimes feels as though that day will never come but we must remember that justice delayed is not justice denied. 3. Christianity is based upon ancient Egyptian Mythology. a. Where is this information coming from? The film makes a big deal over the fact that Horus, who apparently had many "striking similarities" to Jesus, was worshiped by the more than 3000 years ago. Undeniably Horus was one of a pantheon of gods in Egypt in ancient times. However, it must be noted that the details concerning these gods, their attributes, activities and histories, are shrouded in mystery. The New Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology states concerning the Egyptian preoccupation with depicting divinities in art: "In view if such multiplicity of diviner images it may seem strange to suggest that the religion of Ancient Egypt is very imperfectly known to us. Such, however, is the case; though we know the names of all the gods and goddesses and the temples in which they were worshipped, we understand little of their nature and seldom know even the legends concerning them. It is true that the innumerable religious texts which have survived often allude to mythological occurrences. The full stories themselves, however, are almost never set down; for they were known to every early Egyptian and handed down from generation to generation by world of mouth alone. Only the myth of Osiris – one of the greatest gods in the Egyptian pantheon – has been transmitted in detail to us by Plutarch." ( p. 9, emphasis mine – J.F.) Who was Plutarch, to whom we owe the bulk of our knowledge concerning Egyptian mythology relevant to this topic? Plutarch was a Greek writer who lived from AD 46 – 120. In other words, he was born some 13 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Even if Plutarch wrote the information about the Egyptian religion at the age of 15 (very unlikely), that would put him in the year 61 – still nearly 30 years after the coming of Christ. Furthermore, it puts him approximately 2000 years after the time when Horus was actively worshiped by the Egyptians. Friend and foe alike agree that Christianity at that time had grown and was growing rapidly. In the face of Christian claims might we suspect that Plutarch was attributing to these mythological figures some of what he had heard about Jesus? Consider one of Plutarch's famous works entitled "Parallel Lives", in which he documented the lives of famous Romans and Greeks, drawing comparisons between their common strengths and weaknesses. According to the introduction to the translation of Plutarch's work (Plutarch "Translator's Introduction", Fall Of The Roman Republic: Six Lives by Plutarch, translated by Rex Warner, Penguin Books, 1972, p.8.), Plutarch occasionally fabricated similarities between famous Greeks and Romans in order to write the biographies in parallel fashion. The World book Encyclopedia states of Plutarch's "Lives" that "the comparisons are often forced." (WBE, Vol. 15, 1986, p. 516) The following quotations come from "15 Ancient Greek Heroes "For many years Plutarch served as one of the two priests at the temple of Apollo at Delphi (the site of the famous Delphic Oracle) twenty miles from his home. By his writings and lectures Plutarch became a celebrity in the Roman empire, yet he continued to reside where he was born, and actively participated in local affairs, even serving as mayor. At his country estate, guests from all over the empire congregated for serious conversation, presided over by Plutarch in his marble chair." "Plutarch's Greek heroes had been dead for at least 300 years by the time he wrote their lives (circa 100 A.D.). Plutarch therefore had to rely on old manuscripts, many of which are no longer available. But even the legends of antiquity may be smelted by the power of reason to yield some insight, as Plutarch assures us at the beginning of his life of Theseus. It is up to the reader to use this divine spark to intuit the truth from the details by means of the power of abstraction, which is "passing from a plurality of perceptions to a unity gathered together by reason." (Plato, Phaedrus 249). Plutarch himself had no faith in the accuracy of even the purportedly factual materials he had to work with, as is evident from this comment in his life of Pericles: "It is so hard to find out the truth of anything by looking at the record of the past. The process of time obscures the truth of former times, and even contemporaneous writers disguise and twist the truth out of malice or flattery." "Plutarch believed in one unitary god, with different names for its different aspects. In between god and mortal men, Plutarch believed that there was an infinite hierarchy of other beings, who were subject to death and rebirth but on longer cycles. Inasmuch as they had not completely purged all of their passions, these spiritual beings had weaknesses, such as anger. Men could be promoted into angels, and angels could be demoted into men, according to how they had lived their previous lives." Plutarch's willingness no fabricate history when necessary, his preconceived religious notions, and his appeal to intuition based on a "divine spark" over written history, must be noted. Lay this beside the fact that he is a principle witness to the details of Egyptian mythology and the fact that there exists no unambiguous pre-Christian evidence that Egyptian deities so closely paralleled the life of Christ. In light of these facts, is it not prudent to regard the claims of the Zeitgeist film as suspect? The New Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology states concerning Horus (whom the film compares to Christ): "Horus is the Latin rendering of their Greek Horos and the Egyptian Hor. He was a solar god constantly identified with Apollo and represented by a falcon or a falconheaded god. Under the Hor – which sounds like a word meaning sky – the Egyptians referred to the falcon which they saw soaring above their heads, and many thought of the sky as a divine falcon whose two eyes were the sun and the moon. The worshippers of this bird must have been numerous and powerful; for it was carried on a totem on prehistoric standards and from earliest times was considered the preeminent divine being. The hieroglyph which represents the idea of ‘god' was a flacon on its perch. Wherever the followers of the falcon settled, Horus was worshipped, but in the course of time and in the different sanctuaries which were dedicated to him his role and attributes varied. Thus we find in the Egyptian pantheon some twenty Horuses, among whom it is important to distinguish Horus the Elder, ‘Haroeris', and other falcons of a solar character such as Hor Behdetite, Horus of Edfu, from Horus, son of Isis, of the Osirian legend – i.e. ‘Harsiesis', the infant aveger of his father." (p.21) During the film, two parallel tables appear on the screen marking the "startling similarities" between Jesus and Horus. The list scrawls up the screen so fast that the viewer can't read what's there. If you stop the film and actually read what's on those lists I think you'll find the similarities quite forced in many places. For example, one "similarity" reads: "The Unique Horus" and across from that we read "The Unique Jesus" . There are many such "similarities" on these lists, but you aren't supposed to actually read them. The filmmakers just want to to see these enormous lists quickly crawl up the screen so you say "wow, look at how similar Horus was to Jesus". It's nothing more than a cheap parlor track meant to dazzle the audience. Further, remember the encyclopedia quote. There were actually 20 Horuses! The film makes no distinction between them and so claimed similarities between Christ and a single Egyptian deity are really similarities between Christ and a multiplicity of gods. In light of this fact alone, the film's whole premise about Jesus being simply a copy of Horus begins to crumble. By the way who is it that gives us the details concerning the Osiris Legend, which gives us the critical information concerning Horus? You got it – Plutarch, the priest of Delphi. Remember that Plutarch was a priest of Apollo, whom the Encyclopaedia says was identified with Horus. In fact, the Egyptian goddess Buto, who was said to have helped hide the infant Horus, bcame identified with Latona, the mother of Apollo. In my opinion therefore, most of the details concerning the Horus myth have nothing to do with the Christ of the New Testament. Those that do are either sheer coincidence, or most likely, taken from early Christian claims about Jesus and attributed to Horus by Plutarch. b. The Horus Myth is actually very dissimilar to the Gospel accounts of Jesus Concerning the Osirus myth, whose details we owe to Plutarch, the World Book Encyclopaedia states, "Osirus was the chief god of the underworld among the ancient Egyptians. He was worshipped in many great temples of Egypt. Osirus was the prince of the dead. He ruled the underworld of the tomb, which was populated by the souls of the dead. Egyptians believed that, when they died, they became Osirus. Osirus was the husband of Isis and the father of Horus. His brother was Set, who represented evil. According to a tradition, Set tricked Osirus into getting into a box, and then threw it into the Nile River. Isis found the box, but Set stole the body and cut it into 14 pieces. Isis found Osirus' body and brought it back to Egypt, where Horus was born. Horus avenged Osirus' death by defeating Set and his followers. Osirus was given new life. He then ceased to be a king of this world, and became king of the underworld. Thus, the idea of resurrection became the central theme on the worship of Osirus. Osirus is often represented in art as a mummy, wearing the crown of Upper Egypt on his head." (WBE, vol. 14, 1986, p.655) Will Durant states regarding the Osirus myth: "There was Osirus…god of the beneficent Nile, whose death and resurrection were celebrated yearly as symbolizing the fall and rise of the river and perhaps the decay and growth of the soil. Every Egyptian of the later dynasties could tell the story of how Set (or Sit), the wicked god of desiccation, who shrivelled up harvests with his burning breath, was angered at Osiris (the Nile) for extending (with his overflow) the fertility of the earth, slew him and reigned in dry majesty over Osirus;' kingdom (i.e., the river once failed to rise), until Horus, brave son of Isis, overcame Set and banished him; whereafter Osirus, brought back to life by the warmth of Isis' love, ruled benevolently over Egypt, suppressed cannibalism, established civilization, and then ascended to heaven to reign there endlessly as a god." "Our Oriental Heritage, Simon and Schuster, 1954, p. 200 These myths clearly have far less in common with New Testament Christianity than the film claims. Of course there are similarities between the Christianity and the Osirus myth, as Durant points out: "The Egyptians worshipped [Isis] with special fondness and piety, and raised up jewelled images to her as the Mother of God; her tonsured priests praised her in sonorous matins and vespers, and in midwinter of each year, coincident with the annual rebirth of the sun towards the end of our December, the temples of her divine child, Horus (god of the sun), showed her, in holy effigy, nursing in a stable the babe that she had miraculously conceived. These poetic-philosophic legends and symbols profoundly affected Christian ritual and theology. Early Christian sometimes worshipped before the statues of Isis suckling the infant Horus, seeing in them another form of the ancient and noble myth by which woman (i.e., the female principle), creating all things, becomes at last the mother of God)" "Our Oriental Heritage, Simon and Schuster, 1954, pp. 200-201 It's important to discern here what is similar between Egyptian myth and actual New Testament Christianity. The picture of Isis nursing her divine child in a stable is reminiscent of the birth narrative of Jesus to be sure. But the rest of the story is utterly dissimilar. Yes, Mary the mother of Jesus has come to be called the Mother of God, but this is of relatively late origin. The New Testament gives her no such title. The Bible is clear that Jesus being God Himself has existed from all eternity. Jesus is referred to as the last Adam. Just as Adam was created supernaturally without a father or mother, so was Jesus. Yes, He grew inside the womb of Mary, but is genetic makeup up was entirely unique and independent of her. Hebrews 10:5-7 states concerning the person and work of Jesus: "Wherefore when [Jesus] cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifie and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." Later opinions about Jesus and Mary, even on the part of professing Christians, are really inconsequential. The New Testament is the foundation of our faith. One can search its pages high and low for the type of veneration given to Isis as the mother of God, but the search would be a vain one. The fact that later Christian bowed down to statues of Isis is nothing more than a sad reminder that humans in general suffer from a propensity toward idolatry. The chart below illustrates some of the profound differences between Jesus and Horus, whoch the film degrected to discuss:
c. Mythmaking requires time. Notice that Egyptian mythology involves characters far removed from the recipients of the stories by a great deal of time and space. This goes in spades for the writings of Plutarch. The New Testament is different. Everyone, even those who deny that Jesus ever existed, have to admit that the New Testament Gospels were written in the first century. That means that the Gospels were written within a generation or two of the events they describe. How was it that these stories came to be accepted as fact if there was absolutely no evidence to support them? This becomes very difficult to explain when we consider the next point: the details. d. Myths hide details in obscurity. The New Testament gives us countless details that can be, and have been, tested. The coming of Jesus is given to us in the New Testament in exact chronological detail. For instance, in John 2 we learn that the commencement of Jesus ministry coincided with the 46th year of the temple's construction. Luke's Gospel gives numerous chronological details as well. Prominent people are named: Pontius Pilate, Gameliel, Herod Antipas, Aretas, and Joseph of Arimathea, just to name a few. The New Testament record bears no similarities whatsoever with the pagan myths mentioned in the film. e. The Paul Problem. I've yet to see one sceptic, even those that deny Jesus was an actual historic figure, deny the reality of the apostle Paul. All agree that Paul was a real person, and an active proponent of the Christian faith. So influential was he in the rapid spread of Christianity that many have mistakenly assumed that Paul was actually the one who created the "Christ myth." This is simply not true. Consider these facts:
f. Closing the Time Gap: The Infallible Proof According to Josephus, Jesus was crucified "at the suggestion of the principle men among [the Jews]." (Antiquities, XVIII, 33). We know that Pilate ruled in Judea from AD 26-36. We also know that Sejanus, captain of the Praetorian Guard to Tiberius in Rome, was probably the one who appointed Pilate to the Judean governorship. In AD 31 Sejanus was executed along with many of his associates under the charge of sedition. Further, Philo records that Tiberius issued an edict after the execution of Sejanus: "[Tiberius] charged his procurators in every place to which they were appointed to speak comfortably to the members of our nation in different cities, assuring them that the penal measures did not extend to all but only to the guilty, who were few, and to disturb none of the established customs but even to regard them as a trust committed to their care, the people as naturally peaceable, and the institutions as an influence promoting orderly conduct." Philo, "Legatio", 24, 159-161 The crucifixion of Jesus under Pilate, who was notably anti-Semitic, "at the suggestion of the principle men" of the Jews makes more sense if it occurred after Tiberius' edict., that is AD 31. With the crucifixion centred around that time, we can create reasonable timeline based upon the authentic writings of Paul. Paul states in 2 Corinthians 11 that he had to flee the city of Damascus when Aretas was ruling. We know that Aretas the IV was in power from 9BC to AD40. So here we have a fixed chronological point. Paul may have escaped Damascus and fled to Jerusalem to see Peter and James before AD 40, but not after. Lets give the sceptic every advantage by distancing Paul as far as we can from the historic Jesus. Let's say that Paul's escape did indeed that place in AD 40. What was going on before that time? For starters, Paul was actively preaching in Damascus, the thing that probably got him into trouble in the first place. How long was he doing that? For the sceptic, the shorter the better. Let's say he was only there preaching for six months. So his arrival and escape both took place in AD 40. What was going on before that? Paul says that he had sojourned in Arabia. How long was he there? Let's say a year. That brings us to AD 39. Before that time he was in Damascus, for an indeterminate period of time. Before that was his miraculous conversion to Christianity. When was that? To be fair to the critic, let's estimate AD 38, as the year Paul became a Christian. That same question must again be asked: What was going on before that? Paul says that prior to his conversion he was actively persecuting Christians in an effort to destroy the new faith. How long was that going on? Giving the critic every advantage, let's say it was only going on for a few months. That brings us to about AD 37-38 for the commencement of Paul's efforts against the early Christian church. Again we ask, what was going on before that? In order for Christianity to elicit the kind of aggression displayed by Paul, it must have grown to a formidable size. How long did this process take? A year is not unreasonable. That brings us to AD 36-37 for the earliest proclamation of Jesus as the resurrected Saviour. Paul is clear that the earliest Christians were centred in Jerusalem - the very place where the death and resurrection of Jesus supposedly took place. Putting things together, we see that the Christian faith was born within about 5 years of the events it describes. Some may argue that five years was adequate time for the disciples to come and steal His body in order to claim that a resurrection had taken place. The critic can maintain this view if he wants, but one thing is abundantly clear: the idea that Jesus was purely a mythical figure in the light of the available historic evidence is absolutley absurd. 4. There is no extra biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. This claim is utter nonsense. The film itself goes on to discuss, albeit briefly, the writings of Roman historians Seutonius, Pliny and Tacitus. All three mention Jesus in their writings. The film simply skims over their records as being of little consequence when in fact these writings do much to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus and the church He founded. Let's examine what these men actually wrote: Seutonius: "…because the Jews of Rome [were] indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus [Claudius] expelled them from the city." Seutonius, "Claudius", 25:4 Almost all scholars agree that "Chrestus" is a variant form of Christos, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew "Messiah", or "anointed one". The term "Christ", as it is well known, is the anglicized version, and became the claimed title for Jesus of Nazareth. This expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius is mentioned in the book of Acts (18:2), and its cause can probably be deduced. Most likely Christian doctrine had reached the Roman populace, to the disapproval of many synagogue members there. The result was the "rioting in ghettos", which Claudius promptly addressed. Blaiklock states, "There is a quite authentic touch of Claudius' well documented whimsicality and carefulness in the result. Unable to decide the issue he banished all Jews." E.M. Blaiklock, "The Archaeology of the New Testament", Revised and Updated, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, p. 74 Again, we must consider the likelihood that the worship of a crucified man could persist in great numbers only thirty years after the fact, if there was not at least some compelling evidence supporting the resurrection account. Pliny the Younger: According to Pliny the Christians of his time, "…affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up" Pliny the Younger, Epistles X, 96 This information, wrote Pliny, was confirmed when he captured and tortured two Christian women – presumably to death. The strong moral commitment to honesty by those who wrote and propagated the New Testament, even in the face of unspeakable tortures, can only serve to strengthen the case for the substantial reliability of the New Testament. Tacitus: Having lived through the reigns of over half a dozen emperors, he is considered by many to be the father of Roman history. Tacitus also affirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, and also describes the horrific persecution of Christians under Nero. According to Tacitus: "Hence to suppress the rumor [that it was he who set Rome on fire], he falsely charged with 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 Pontus Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." Cornelius Tacitus, Annals XV, 44 It is incredible to believe that Christianity could have gained such a substantial following by Nero's time if its teachings were easily refutable historically. Note that in Roman times, crucifixion was considered the most horrific, shameful way to die. If there was not at least some historical viability to the resurrection account by Nero's time (30 years after the crucifixion), then the worship of the crucified Jesus, especially in the face of persecution, becomes inexplicable. All three of these men wrote during the first part of the second century, making them contemporaries with at least some of those that would have been eyewitnesses to Christ. It is little wonder then that a film bent on destroying the Christian faith histoirically would spend so little time on their testimonies. Josephus never wrote about Jesus? The film claims that the comments made by the first century historian Josephus concerning Jesus have been proven fraudulent. This is simply not true. The "testimonium" as it has been dubbed is found in every extant Greek manuscript of Jospheus' work. The passage reads: "Now there was about his time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities, XVIII,33) Because Josephus never became a Christian, many rightly argue that he would have never referred to Jesus exactly the way the text reads. Though this reading is found in every extant manuscript, it probably is not entirely original, but was "worked up" by an early Christian scribe. Paul Maier relates how a discovery of an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus' Testimonium corresponds almost exactly to previous scholarly projections of what he actually wrote: "In 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem announced his discovery of an Arabic manuscript of Josephus written by the tenth century Melkite historian Agapius, in which the passage in question translates as follows: "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day." Paul L. Maier, "Eusebius: The Church History" Kregel Publications, 1999, p. 378 Also note that following the testimonium, Josephus mentions Jesus again: "But the younger brother Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bolt disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgement above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." Antiquities XX, 9.1 One would expect further identifying information concerning Jesus if this was the only passage referring to Him. This is another evidence that the testimonium is not an interpolation. The film's claims that Jesus' life remains unattested outside the Bible is therefore patently false. 5. The Details of Christ's life (i.e. the virgin birth, the Dec 25 birth day, the visit of three kings who follow a star) are identical to many pagan myths. Christianity is simply another pagan myth whose ultimate origin lay in Egyptian astrological religion. a. Christians have "Christianized" many pagan traditions. This is a well-known fact. After Constantine converted to Christianity, there was a definite push to "Christianize" the entire Roman Empire. Special pagan days, like Dec 25, were adopted by Christians and given an alternate, "Christian" meaning. No serious scholar that I've ever heard of, Christian or not, actually believes that Christ was born on Dec 25. Likewise, the idea of a visit of the "three wise men" to the manger in Bethlehem is also of relatively late origin. Comparing this later view of the Magoi visit with astrological phenomena like the 3 stars in the belt of Origin following Sirius is therefore pointless. Nowhere in the Scriptures are we told that Jesus' birth was accompanied by three kings from the east. The Gospels tell us that the visit from the Magoi came several years after Jesus was born, and took place not in a manger but in a house (Matthew 2). The exact number of men in the group is not given. The fact that three gifts are mentioned, (gold, frankincense and myrrh) is no proof that there were only three Magoi. There may have only been two. Maybe there were 20. The fact is we don't know how many there were. The Scripture is silent on this point. This is a serious flaw in the film's reasoning. Instead of drawing legitimate parallels between pagan myth and the actual Gospels themselves, the filmmakers have compared pagan mythology to later Christian legends and traditions. Obviously such reasoning does nothing to undermine the reliability of the actual New Testament historical record, but it does make for entertaining viewing. b. The Jewishness of the Christian faith is conspiciously absent in the film. All agree that Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament with its multiplicity of quotations from the Jews Scriptures makes this point abundantly clear. This fact alone, in my mind, utterly destroys the idea that Christianity was rooted in any sort of Pagan – especially Egyptian – myth. Consider these facts: A clear distinction has always been maintained between Egypt and Israel. The Psalmist writes: "When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language. Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion." Psalm 114:1-2 In other Psalm we read concerning Israel: "This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: where I heard a language that I understood not." Eating with Hebrews is viewed as an abomination to the Egyptians in Genesis 43:32, and Israel's occupation as shepherds was also regarded as an abomination. This fact guaranteed the Israelite segregation in Goshen -Genesis 46:34. Of course one cannot forget the 400+ years of bondage that the Israelites suffered in Egypt. The New Testament comments on this in Acts 7:19: "…till another king arose who did not know Joseph. This man dealt treacherously with our people, and oppressed our forefathers…" Acts 7:19 There has been almost constant hostility between Israel and Egypt In 604 B.C., godly king Josiah initiated war with Egypt (2 Chronicles 35:20-23). The righteous king was killed in battle and the entire nation (including Jeremiah the prophet) mourned for him after his death (2 Chronicles 35:24-27). According to 2 Kings 23:34-35. Pharoah Necho subjected Judah to heavy taxation after defeating Josiah This occurred while Jeremiah was prophesying (c. 600 B.C.). Jeremiah writes: "And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Sihor? Or what hast thou to do in the way of Assyria, to drink the waters of the river? Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee…" Jeremiah 2:18 Elsewhere he writes: "The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles; Against Egypt, against the army of Pharoah-necho, king of Egypt…" Jeremiah 46:1-2. In fact, all of Chapter 46 is donated to warnings of impending judgement upon Egypt for its wickedness. The idea that the religion of the Old Testament is based in Egyptian astrological mythology is simply ridiculous in light Jeremiah's strong warnings. In Jeremiah 10:2 he writes: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them." Deuteronomy 4:19, 2 Kings 23:5 and Job 31:26-28 contain some of the strongest statements against the worship of the sun, moon or stars. With Christianity firmly rooted in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament firmly and consistently standing against the religions of Egypt, the whole idea of Christianity being based on some sort of pagan astrotheological philosophy becomes utter nonsense. c. Messianic Prophecies are ignored. The Old Testament is replete with allusions to a Saviour figure who would come both as a suffering servant and a conquering king. For example. Daniel 9 tells us that the Messiah would be killed, and afterward the city (Jerusalem) and the Temple would be destroyed. The book of Daniel claims to be of 6th century BC origin but modern scholarship, operating from an antisupernaturalistic assumption, places the time of writing in the second century BC. Even if we accept this late date Daniel is still on the mark about the Messiah. Jesus Christ did indeed claim to be the Messiah of Israel, and He was indeed rejected and crucified. Furthermore, it is a solid historic fact that the city of Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed some 40 years later by the Roman general Titus in AD 70. Call it lucky, call it a fluke, but Daniel's prophecy was not ambiguous. It was clear, and it was clearly fulfilled. We've already established that Jesus was an historic figure. Here we have the proof that His death was central in the fulfilling of a clear messianic prophecy. Is the Christian's trust in Jesus Christ really so misplaced? There are many such unambiguous prophecies throughout the Old Testament. Isaiah 9:6, for example, predicts that a child would be born, and a Son given. This child is to be called, among other things, "The Mighty God." Back in Isaiah 7:14 we are told that a child would be born of a virgin and His name would be called "Emmanuel" or "God with us." In Micah 5:2 we read out a coming one who would be born in Bethlehem (the house of bread). It is stated here that His goings forth were from "everlasting". The term is the exact same one found in Psalm 90:2, which attributes this characteristic to God. Without a doubt, the prophecy here in Micah is that a divine human would be born. This God-Man was to rule His people Israel. In Isaiah 53 we read about a coming righteous one who would suffer for the sins of many. This "Son of God" is alluded to in Proverbs 30:4, and Psalm 2. Any serious student of the Old Testament should have been well aware of such prophecies. The problem however, was that most people at the time were more enamoured with the prophecies concerning His second coming, when He would return as a conquering warrior. Psalm 2 and Isaiah 11 are just a few of the many prophecies concerning the Second Coming of the Messiah. Clearly, Jesus has far more to do with the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament that with any Egyptian deity. 6. The resurrection is said to have occurred in the spring, because that is when the pagans saw the sun finally "overpowering" the darkness. The film goes to great lengths trying to link Jesus with the pagan sun-gods of past, while ignoring the obvious Jewish nature of original Christianity. The Bible makes it crystal clear that Jesus was killed in the spring of the year. This of course runs contrary to the film's thesis that Jesus' death coincided with the sun's "defeat" by darkness in the autumn. Seeing Jesus in His proper Jewish context, we understand that His death and resurrection in the spring of the year coincided with the Jewish feast of Passover, which, according to the Bible, was instituted some 1400 years before His birth. During the Passover, the Israelites were to slay a spotless lamb of the first year and spread its blood over the posts and lintels of their doorways. God promised that when the death angel saw the blood He would "Passover" that house. All over homes were to suffer the death of their firstborn. Because of this, the final and most devastating plague to strike Egypt, the Pharaoh let the Israelite slaves finally go free. The typology must not be missed. The blood would have formed a "cross" on the doorways. Note also the Mazza bread that the Jews still eat as part of their Passover Seder. It's appearance looks bruised, striped and pierced. It is broken, wrapped in a cloth and then hidden. A little later on the Seder it is found amid great joy. Does this not sound an awful like what happened to Jesus? Some may argue that the resurrection story was fabricated around this Jewish observance. Although I don't think this is the case, it still is more likely than the ridiculous idea that the resurrection was based upon Egyptian astro-religious myth. 7. The Cross is a purely pagan religious symbol. I think the case is far from proven. It is, however, a solid, verifiable fact that the Romans crucified people, and that Jesus suffered just such a fate. If the cross truly was an ancient religious symbol this is entirely coincidental. The fact is, Jesus died on one of these things, and in the centuries to come, the cross became the symbol of His atoning work there. 8. The "ages" spoken of in the Bible refer to time divisions based upon the Zodiac. Emmanuel Velikovsky ("Worlds in Collision", Macmillan Publishing Co., 1950) pointed out many years ago that ancient cultures the world over believed in various ages of human history, each of which came to an abrupt end with a catastrophe. Some cultures saw these ages as being of identical duration, which would support the film's claim that each age of the Zodiac lasted 2150 years. Others had mentioned no definite duration at all. The Bible does mention the concept of ages, but it is in an entirely different context than portrayed in the film. If we take the Bible at face value, we understand that the world God created in the beginning is a far different place than it is today. The relationship of God to angels and man, of man to the animals, the form and distribution of land masses and physical processes, were all profoundly different in that "very good" world than they are today. That world, or age, was over probably within a matter of weeks. We gather this from the fact that God instructed the first couple to be fruitful and multiply, and yet by the time that world was over, they still hadn't conceived. That world ended when Adam and Eve, who were given dominion over the planet, rebelled against God their creator. This event is commonly referred to as the fall, and it radically altered the universe forever. When the king and queen of creation fell, the whole creation fell with them, and so, as Romans chapter 8 tells us, the whole creation no groan and travails in pain. Romans 5:12 is unambiguous. Through Adam's sin, death entered the world. That was the end of the very good world and the beginning world #2, the world before the flood. Again, we read that the world before the flood was a different place than it is today. Human longevity was almost 10 times as great as it is today. Particularly wicked demons, incarcerated at the time of the flood, ran amok in the pre-flood world. The prayer of Lamech described in Genesis 5 reveals a cursed earth where farming was an absolute drudgery. Thorns and thistles appear to have all but choked out useful crops. This, "the Old World" as Peter calls it was destroyed in the most famous cataclysm of all, the Noachian Flood. That ushered in the third world or age, the world of today. This world saw a modification of the Edemic curse brought about by the flood. The earth today, with its great alluvial plains, allows us to grow enormous crops and thus a division of labor is possible. This world also saw the birth of nations, particularly Israel It saw the 1st coming of the Messiah, which was the fulfillment of many prophecies given to that nation and well as the establishment of His church. At some future point, undefined in Scripture, the church will be removed from the planet and shortly after, the rise Satan's masterpiece – the Antichrist, will occur. After a 7-year period of intense human suffering and supernatural disaster, Jesus Christ will return to the earth, vanquish all his enemies and establish His kingdom. This is the 4th of the five worlds or ages described in the Bible. Much is said regarding this 4th system. The Bible calls it a restoration, where human longevity is increased once again, and where animals are returned to their original herbivorous behavior. If the Bible were purely a human book this is where you'd expect the story to end. But this is not the case. The Bible predicts that this kingdom age will last 1000 years, at which time Satan will be released form his incarceration I t Lake of Fire to deceive the nations once again. He will succeed fantastically, and in one final rebellious act, will lead a great multitude of people to fight against Jesus in Jerusalem. Jesus will crush this last rebellious attempt and usher in the last of the five worlds: the eternal state. Those that reject Jesus will be cast into the Lake of Fire where they will spend eternity. Those that have loved and trusted Him will be will Him in what the Bible refers to as the New Heaven and Earth. Th Bible exhausts human language trying to describe how wonderful and enduring that creation will be. The point is, the Biblical concept of ages is vastly different than the astro-religious Egyptian concepts presented in the film. In fact, they bear no similarity whatsoever! 9. Moses was a mythical figure who ushered in the age of Aries. According to the Bible, while Moses was on the mount receiving the Ten Commandments, the Israelites constructed and began worshiping a golden calf. Upon Moses return, he was so displeased with the display that he destroyed the idol and gave order to the Levites to slay all those engaged in such idolatrous behavior. The film claims that Moses never really existed, but was invented to personify the change from the age of Tarus to Aries. The golden calf, we are told, was actually the bull Tarus, and Moses' destruction of it was to represent the shift from the age of Taurus the bull, to the age of Ares the ram. As "proof" for this the film makes mention of the fact that in many Jewish rituals and observances the ram's horn is blown. The whole idea is tenuous at best. To this day the Jewish people observe the Passover Seder once a year. The entire exercise is a reminder of how God miraculously delivered the people from bondage in Egypt. Now we must ask ourselves: If this story is not true, then when and how was the Passover feast introduced into the Jewish culture? As far back as can be traced historically, even according to the liberals, Moses was seen by the Jewish people as an actual historic figure and the Passover as a commemoration of miraculous events that actually took place. Only in relatively recent times, when the world is supersaturated in evolutionism, have these beliefs come to be questioned. Archaeologist Murray Hiebert has demonstrated convincingly that the Hebrew people were in fact occupying a portion of the land of Egypt at the time Bible describes (See "100 Reason to Trust Old Testament History", Westbourne Study Center, 2005 Further, the Hebrew invasion of Canaan following the Exodus has been documented in the famous El Amarna Tablets (Also see Hiebert's "The Historic Conquest", Westbourne Study Center, 2004.Hiebert's views concerning the Amarna tablets and their depiction of the invading Hebrews were shared by Gleason Archer "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, 1964. A summary of Archer's arguments are found in Josh McDowell's, "New Evidence That Demands a Verdict", Thomas Nelson, 1999). To say that Moses or the Exodus never happened is more a statement of faith that anything else. 10. Jesus ushered in the age of Pisces, symbolized by the fish. This is truly one of the more ridiculous claims made in the film. As evidence for this, an appeal is made to Luke 22:10, where Jesus, instructing His disciples on where to prepare the Passover, tells them to follow a man they see in the city bearing a pitcher of water. This supposedly represents the Age of Aquarius, since the Aquarian sign is a man pouring out water from a pitcher. Ignored is the fact that at the time, there was no running water so folks had to carry it pitchers. Also ignored is the fact that at that time and place, carrying water was predominantly the woman's responsibility. A man carrying water would have been a relatively rare sight, at that time (See note in The John McArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, a division of Thomas Nelson, 1997). This identifying mark would have helped guarantee that the disciples followed the right person. We have already noted some of the compelling evidence for the New Testament as a reliable historic record. In light of this evidence it is simply silly to assert that this portion of the Gospel is based upon astro-reliogous Egyptian mythology. The film claims that Jesus ended the age of Ares and ushered in the Age of Pisces, which why the fish became a Christian symbol. No serious scholar that I've ever read follows this outlandish hypothesis. Most agree that the first several centuries of this era saw intensive persecution of the Christian church. It has been long argued that the fish symbol was used by Christians to identify one another. But why the fish and not some other symbol? The Greek word for fish, transliterated into English, is "IXTHUS". This word actual became an acronym for what the first Christians believed: I – IESOUS (Jesus) Those who have adopted the kind of "scholarship" used in the film argue for an alternate meaning of the fish symbol. Based upon the fact that Greek characters, like Hebrew, have other meanings, such as specific numeric values, these folks create elaborate, convoluted scenarios to explain how Christianity adopted a purely pagan symbol. Again, whether or not the fish began as a pagan symbol is entirely beside the point. People throughout the ages have worshipped just about every sort of animal you can imagine. If the fish wasn't used as a religious symbol somewhere I'd be surprised. The point is, the traditional argument shown above is far more likely than the far-fetched "conspiracy theories" being advanced today. The fish symbol in all likelihood had nothing to do with astrology, but everything to do with the person and work of the Jesus Christ, God's Son and Savior of the world. 11. Biblical heroes are not unique. They are inventions based on earlier myths. a. Noah The film rightly points out that hundreds of ancient flood legends exist in cultures all over the world. At no time are we encouraged to ask from what beginning this situation came to be. Is not such a multiplicity of flood stories, many of which display great unanimity in their details, consistent with the idea that the earth was in fact inundated in a global deluge? Of course it is, but the film never grants this, and their silence on this point is significant. Note the words of Nick Thorpe and Peter James, who attempt to explain many ancient mysteries through purely naturalistic mechanisms: "And what of the greatest catastrophe legend of all, the worldwide story of a Great Flood? The Flood story still remains one of the most baffling, unsolved mysteries of our distant past…[The local flood theory] doesn't quite reach to the heart of the flood problem – which is why there are so many similarities to the flood legends globally…we no longer have a natural event that could plausibly explain their origin." Peter James and Nick Thorpe "Ancient Mysteries", 1999, pp. 13-15 The film seems content to argue that the biblical writers simply dressed up a flood story that was current in their own day, without bothering to address the fact that flood stories are common to cultures separated geographically. Nor is any serious comparison made between these legends. Let's do that briefly here. Hawaii China Mexico One survey of tribal groups in North, Central and South America revealed great unanimity between them and the biblical flood narrative. The details were recorded in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p.822. The results in brief are listed in Vance Ferrell's "Science vs. Evolution", Evolution Facts, inc., 2001, p. 612
In total, there are nearly 300 ancient flood stories around the world. Examine some of these stories and judge for yourself which of them seems more plausible as an actual historic event. The biblical account appears by far more factual and less "worked-up" than any of the other accounts. For example, the ark in the biblical account is said to be 10 times as long as it was high, and 6 times as long as it was wide. Shipbuilders have known for years that this is the single best hull configuration for maximum stability. In no other flood legend are the ark's dimensions so realistic. In one account the ark is described as a giant cube! The film claims that the flood story in the Bible is largely based upon the flood accounts found in Egypt. Now this is an interesting claim. For years critics of the Bible have argued against the biblical account of the flood precisely because there was no record of it preserved by the Egyptians! I think the skeptics had better get their notes straight on this one! Notice also the mechanism for, and duration of, the flood itself. The Bible states that the source of the floodwaters was under the earth. The fountains of the great deep broke up and rained back down on the earth for 40 days and nights. The waters however continued to rise for 150 days. The picture we get is one of the floodwaters escaping and falling back to the earth until the water level was so high that the escaping water could no longer be jettisoned in to the air. Even so, the water from under the earth continued to escape into the waters above thus increasing the flood's depth. Again, in other flood account is the mechanism for the flood given in such realistic terms. Most describe the world-covering flood as purely the result of rainfall, which is physically impossible. Further, though the flood is said to have covered the entire world, some legends claim that the whole thing came and went in matter of days. Clearly impossible! It may reasonably be argued that the unadorned biblical narrative, which is rich in minute chronological details and reads more like a captain's log-book than anything else, surely appears to be the original flood account from which all others have derived and deviated. b. Moses "My mother was a priestess. I did not know my father. The priestess, my mother, conceived me and gave birth to me in hiding. She placed me in a basket made of reeds and closed the lid with pitch. She put the basket in the river which was not high. The river carried me away to Akki who was a man responsible for libations. Akki looked upon me with kindness and drew me from the river. He adopted me as his child and brought me up. He made me his gardener. It was while I was his gardener that the goddess Ishtar loved me. Then I became king." The film argues that since the two tales are so similar, and since the Sargon story is much older, the biblical writers must have drawn upon it when fabricating their own Moses story. Is this really the best way to interpret the data? Notice first that the stories aren't really that similar. The only similarity between them is their being placed in a reed basket and sent down a river. Moses' mother wasn't a priestess. A man found Sargon, while Pharaoh's daughter discovered Moses. Sargon became a gardener, Moses a shepherd. Second, to claim that the Hebrews plagiarized the Sargon account is to admit that the account was known the to Hebrew people – obviously. This being the case, we can suspect another, I would say more plausible, explanation for the "baby-in-a-basket" similarity. The Bible tells us that when Moses was born, the Egyptians had issued an edict that all male Hebrew babies were to be killed. His mother was desperate. She didn't want to kill her baby, but she couldn't keep him either. What was she to do? If these people knew the Sargon account as the filmmakers claim, then why can't we suppose that Moses' mother simply drew upon this account as the very reason for her actions? After all, Sargon survived his ordeal and grew to be king of Akkad. Perhaps she hoped that Moses would be blessed with a similar outcome. When all the evidence is considered, this is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the similarity between Sargon and Moses. The film goes on to cite the fact that there were many other lawgivers venerated by the ancients. This proves nothing. Other ancient myths concerning recipients of divine laws may be nothing more than the Moses account "doctored up" to suit another culture. Even if a genuine pre-mosaic parallel account could be found, this would still be no proof that the biblical record is mythological. God speaks to us in a way we can understand, the most obvious and powerful example of this is the incarnation itself, where God communicated the true nature of Himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. It might be that many cultures, because we share a common ancestry and heritage via Noah's family, were "primed" to receive God's laws though one whom He had chosen. According to Genesis 9:6, after the flood God instituted the death penalty. This marked the first hint of human responsibility in government. Note that before the flood there is no hint of any such punishment for murder. Cain was not executed and Lamech used this situation as a salve on his own evil conscious (Genesis 4:23-24). Ecclesiastes 8:11 tells us that unless evil is punished quickly, men's hearts will be wholly set to do that which is wrong. The first law handed down therefore concerning the sanctity of life and the punishment for murder was done so presumably through Noah (as a remedy against the kind of antediluvian chaos described in Genesis 6:7, we may be sure). Knowing that God had issued such a decree through Noah, one might reasonably argue that later pre-mosaic recipients of "divine laws" were simply attempts to gain credibility with cultures already geared to receiving God's instructions via His chosen servant. 12. Justin Martyr admitted that Christianity had much in common with pagan religion. His excuse that "the devil did it" is a feeble answer. Justin Martyr, brilliant philosopher and apologist though he may have been, was not and is not the foundation of the Christian faith. Justin was converted to Christianity from paganism in adult life and it is clear in his writings that one of his goals was to see other Pagans converted. It must also be remembered that Justin was living at time when Christians were actually being killed for their faith. Unlike many of the critics who sit comfortably behind their desks, Justin was doing far more in his writings than simply engaging in an academic exercise. His reasoned defense of the faith was literally a matter of life and death. Justin was actively seeking to persuade the powers that be to end the unreasonable treatment of Christians and it is only understandable that one of his strategies was to mark parallels between the faith systems of Christians and their Roman persecutors. Here's a sampling of Justin's reasoning: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter:Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. …And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?" Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, Chap. XXI "Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior — or rather have already proved Him to be so — for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius. And that this may now become evident to you — (firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He 171 taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof — we shall bring forward the following proof. In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners; other men in other places worshipping trees and rivers, and mice and cats and crocodiles, and many irrational animals. Nor are the same animals esteemed by all; but in one place one is worshipped, and another in another, so that all are profane in the judgment of one another, on account of their not worshipping the same objects. And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead libations and the savour of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices. For you very well know that the same animals are with some esteemed gods, with others wild beasts, and with others sacrificial victims. And, secondly, because we — who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or Aesculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods — have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils." Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, Chap. XXI-. XXV. Though Christianity and the Pagan myths known to Justin do share some similarities, by all accounts we must reckon them quite unremarkable. Surely they are not as profound as the film tries to make out. In the final analysis, these similarities appear quite useless as support for the film's thesis that Christianity is based on Egyptian Astro-mythology. Consider these facts concerning Justin's comments:
So what about Justin's claim that similarities between Christianity and earlier pagan religions are the world of the devil? Justin states: "… I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, ‘strong as a giant to run his race,' (Psa_19:5) has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?" Justin Martyr, Trypho LXIX Again, though Justin does raise a valid issue to which we will shortly turn our attention, the fact is, he is not the foundation of our faith. The Bible is the bedrock on which our whole Christian faith stands, and it is through careful and consistent exegesis of Scripture that these issues may be resolved. Creation until Babel:
Let's consider what I've outlined above and how it may relate to the many religious myths that share some commonalties:
With the above observations concerning the beginnings of mankind in mind, we can expect to find ancient religions which include:
So we can see that frail, sinful human memory may largely be responsible for the twisting of precious truths instituted at the dawn of human history. Of course, Justin's claims that Satan was responsible are not entirely without merit. If we are consistent with our Christian worldview, then we must acknowledge the reality of Satan, and his propensity toward counterfeiting what God has promised and done. The New Testament warns us about a coming antichrist, who would carry out the ultimate masquerade, claiming to be God Himself! A quick note should be made here regarding Justin's claimed origin of ritual use of wine. Recall that Justin claimed "when [the pagans] introduce wine into [Bacchus, a son of Jupiter's] mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?" Two points need to be made here. First, according the Bible, the first instance we have of bread and wine being linked with the priesthood comes around 2000 BC, with the mysterious Melchizedek (Genesis 14). Recall that Abraham met the Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, after his battle with the five kings. However God revealed to Melchizedek the significance of these emblems we may never know. The point is, the bread and wine and their association with the priesthood of the One True God predates the Greek mythology of Jupiter cited by Justin, or the liturgy of Mythra. Second, there is some discrepancy between manuscripts in the passage. Notice that "wine" (Greek "Oinos") looks very similar to "ass" (Greek "Onos"). Knowing that the worshippers of Bacchus saw the ass as sacred to him, we might regard this passage in the latter sense. Again, in neither sense is there any real evidence that Christianity adopted pagan religious doctrines and rituals. Justin's concern here appears unjustified. 13. Many other "Christs" have been worshipped by ancient cultures. The film claims that many ancient versions of Christ have come and gone, and that the Jesus of the New Testament is the just latest version of this myth. As proof the film cites Attis, Krishna (900BC), Dyonisius (500 BC) and Mithra. Let's briefly examine each: Attis No real details are given in the film about this god, other than the broad claim that he was a precursor to the Christ Myth. A cursory perusal of Attis' own story does indeed reveal a similarity or two. From the Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, Vol. One, 1964: "Attis, Atys – A Phrygian deity connected with the worship of Cybele; his death was mourned for two days in the spring, and his recovery (when his spirit passed into a pine tree and violets sprang up from his blood.) then celebrated." Admitedly, we do see some similarities between Jesus and Attis, such as a death that was mourned two days and an apparent resurrection in the spring. Will Durant mentions the virgin birth of Attis, which this god also apparently has in common with Jesus, but notice also the striking dissimilarities: "Atys, we are informed, was miraculously born of the virgin-goddess Nana, who conceived him by placing a pomegranate between her breasts." Durant, "Our Oriental Heritage", Simon and Schuster, New York, 1954, P.288 The above narrative concerning the conception of Attis bears very little resemblance to the Gospel's account of Christ's incarnation. Further, the life, death and "resurrection" of Attis, upon closer inspection, is equally dissimilar. From the Readers' Encyclopaedia, Illustrated ed., Vol I, Thomas Cromwell Co., 1965: "Atys or Attis – The Phrygian counterpart of the Greek Adonis and the Phoenician Tammuz. He was beloved by Cybele, the mother of the gods, but out of jealousy she drove him mad and he castrated himself, died at a pine tree and violets sprang from his blood." According to the New Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology (p.150), the life and exploits of Attis are uncertain. One tradition states that Cybele fell in love with Attis and commissioned him to be a priest for her, and imposed on him a vow of chastity. When he broke that vow Cybele struck him with delirium and he mutilated himself. When he recovered he was on the point of killing himself, but Cybele changed him into a fir tree. Another tradition states that Zeus became jealous of Attis and sent a wild boar to destroy him. Clearly, the similarities between Jesus and Attis are not as "striking" as the film claims. Durant states that "these barbarous legends fascinated the imagination of the Greeks, and entered profoundly into their mythology and their literature. The Romans officially adopted Cybele into their religion, and some of the orgiastic rites that marked the Roman carnivals were derived from the wild rituals with which the Phrygians annually celebrated the death and resurrection of the handsome Atys." (p.288) Note then the propensity the ancient Greeks and Romans had for adopting and incorporating previously existing mythologies into their own religious worldviews and practices. Krishna (900 BC) In none of the sources that I consulted was there any details involving Krishna that even remotely resemble the kind of parallels claimed by the film. Consider these facts concerning Krishna from the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology:
Even if the parallels that the film claims actually do exist, we must remember that along with the many allusions to the coming Messiah that would be expected simply due to the common ancestry of the human race, by 900 BC the Pentateuch was already completed. Not only does its pages give to us the prophecy of the woman's Seed, but we also hear of the Ruler that would spring out of the Tribe of Judah (Genesis 49) and the Prophet whom God would raise up like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18). Further, we read of this coming one's star (Numbers 24). Since Krishna is dated by the film at 900 BC and the Pentateuch was completed by 1400 BC, I think it reasonable to suspect the filmmakers have things backwards. Dyonisius (500 BC) The situation is even worse for Dyonisius. Perusing through the literature I have on mythology, I could hardly find a similarity between this god and Jesus. Here I think the film is simply "blowing smoke." Again, even if someone could produce the "striking parallels" claimed by the film, we must we consider human kind's common ancestry until the Tower of Babel as a likely resource for religious commonalties. Further, we must consider that by 500 BC, many of the clearest messianic prophecies were already recorded by Jewish scribes. Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2 and 22, Isaiah 53, and Daniel 9 would have been long recorded by the time the Dyonisus cult began. So who's ripping off whom? Mithra Is claimed to be of Persian origin, having been adopted by the Romans some time around 70 BC. It is claimed that Mithra instituted a communion meal almost identical to that instituted by the Lord. A death and resurrected is also claimed for Mythra by some. The problem I see here is that our main source for Mythraic information is Plutarch. Recall that Plutarch the priest of Apollo lived after the time of Christ, and probably wrote 50 years after Jesus was crucified. He was not exactly an unbiased reported of the facts, as we have noted, and even some of Christianity's most ardent critics are prepared to entertain the possibility that the Mithraic religion borrowed from the Christianity, rather than the other way around. 14. The Council of Nicea is where the politically motivated church established Christian doctrine This is at best a half-truth. The council of Nicea (AD 325) did not establish the basic doctrines of Christianity, it simply ratified what Christians already believed and practiced. As irrefutable evidence one need only recall that the film itself makes reference to Justin. Justin died in AD 165, fully 160 years before the Nicean Council. Justin's writings make it clear that the Christians of his day held to the same beliefs as most Christians today. Beyond a doubt he relied upon the same four Gospels that have graced our Bible from his time to ours. Others could cited: Clement of Rome, Papias, Aristides, Quadratus, Polycarp, Hegesippus, Pothinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen all predated the Nicene Council. All saw Christ as the virgin born divine Son of God, who led a sinless life, and who was crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended into heaven. To state that these basic beliefs were invented at the Council of Nicea is utterly ridiculous. Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church grew to become quite politically motivated, at times even violently so. But to call the Christian community at that time, who had just survived the most cruel and ruthless persecution at the hands of Diocletion, "politically motivated" is hard to justify. Even if these folks were "politically motivated" at the time, this does nothing the undermine the basic reliability of the New Testament record, which predates the Council by three centuries. Summary and Conclusions: Contradictory: To claim, as the film does, that evolution is a peaceful upward progressive while faulting religion as the cause of bloodshed is ridiculous. Death and bloodshed go hand in hand with evolution. Remember, the Law of Darwin is incompatible with the Law of Christ. Since the film was evidently produced by evolutionists, it is inconsistent to point the finger at death and war as being "wrong". It is downright erroneous to claim that religion is the cause of most wars / deaths when the facts clear indicate otherwise. Flawed: The film assumes that the evolution is true (which itself requires the transgression of numerous logical and physical laws). With this assumption in place, it interprets superficial similarities between Christianity and pagan mythology as an indication that the Christianity is based upon nothing historic. Using this sort of flawed reasoning, the titanic amount of historic evidence for the New Testament is either ignored outright, as though it didn't exist, or simply denied. I find it absolutely incredible that the makers of this film would spend the time and energy uncovering a cryptic, message describing the true origins of Christianity, which was so well-hidden that it remained undetected for almost 2,000 years, yet at the same time, neglect to consider the wealth of historic evidence in favor of the New Testament which has been obvious to scholars for centuries. Sloppy Scholarship The filmmakers argue that Christianity is merely a rip off of earlier, most notably, Egyptian, religious systems. They spent a great deal of time comparing Christ to Horus, without ever bothering to consider where it was that the information concerning Horus came from. The fact is, the bulk of this information comes from Plutarch, the Preist of Apollo (the Greek counterpart to Horus) who lived in a highly Christianized area at least 50 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is a well known fact the Plutarch was not above fabricating history in order to make his point, and it is just as probable that Christian doctrine influenced the writings of Plutarch when setting down the Osirus Myth. Unfortunately, these facts seem to have escaped the notice of the filmmakers. Conclusion: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Last Updated on Sunday, 01 November 2009 21:45 |
