Dear "The Zeitgeist Challenge,"

I would like to know if you can show me where in the ancient _script_ures it says that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th?

That is my challenge to you.

It doesn't. That date was assigned after Jesus' time. As near as I can tell, there's about a 1/365 chance that He was born that day.

That's right, there is nowhere in ancient _script_ures where is says that Jesus was born on December 25th. I would also like to note that not a single person running this website would comment on this fact, because to do so would be to admit that their ENTIRE CLAIM is faulty and that this is all pointless.

Also, what I do not hear anyone arguing is whether or not the story of Jesus, whether shared with other deities or not, actually tells the story of the Sun's movements throughout the year. I would have to say without a doubt that is does. I have even watched it in the sky myself, and it is not just Christmas, Easter fits into the scheme, too.

So now, where does that leave us? Right back where we started. It is clear that the story that has been attributed to Jesus is in fact the story of the Sun, and it is also clear that there is a common archetype of the dying and resurrecting god all throughout the ancient world. It may not be the same exact story as the Zeitgeist film would have us believe, but it is enough to raise certain questions that the people running this site obviously do not want raised. In the Zeitgeist Challenge video it says, and I quote "believing the Zeitgeist version of history, is a belief _base_d on faith, not on historical scientific fact," well, I would have to say that there is no better way to describe a person's faith in Christianity, it all comes down to faith. Do you have faith in Jesus or do you not? Because, to date, there is no historical scientific fact proving the existence of the figure known as Jesus Christ.

The bottom line here people is that you cannot believe anything anyone tells you. You are being persuaded by quite convincing propaganda from both sides. You need to go out and do your own research and use that for the formation of your own beliefs. Isn't it better to think for yourself anyway?

The Urban Minstrel wrote:
That's right, there is nowhere in ancient _script_ures where is says that Jesus was born on December 25th. I would also like to note that not a single person running this website would comment on this fact, because to do so would be to admit that their ENTIRE CLAIM is faulty and that this is all pointless.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. But first of all, since Jesus being born on 12/25 is one of the things that they have challenged the "Zeitgeisters" to prove, I'm guessing the people running this site don't believe in the 12/25 birthdate, either (they can correct me if I'm wrong). Their purpose is to show that Zeitgeist has made a whole lot of unsupported claims, and the ones about these deities also having 12/25 birthdates is just a few of them. I don't see how proving that Zeitgeist made a bunch of unsupported claims is pointless. They have. That's the point.

Also, what I do not hear anyone arguing is whether or not the story of Jesus, whether shared with other deities or not, actually tells the story of the Sun's movements throughout the year. I would have to say without a doubt that is does. I have even watched it in the sky myself, and it is not just Christmas, Easter fits into the scheme, too.

If someone looks hard enough for a pattern, they'll usually find it whether it's actually there or not. So the fact that you've found a pattern proves nothing. I've seen people use these exact same methods to "prove" that Napoleon Bonaparte and the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team fit the same patterns. Does that prove to you that Napoleon and the Maple Leafs are fictional, too?

So now, where does that leave us? Right back where we started. It is clear that the story that has been attributed to Jesus is in fact the story of the Sun,

To you, maybe. To those of us who have an ounce of skepticism towards these claims, not at all.

and it is also clear that there is a common archetype of the dying and resurrecting god all throughout the ancient world.

That's the type of claim that the people who run this website are asking you to show. Can you? So far, all I've seen from "copycat Christ" people are a lot of claims that they refuse to back up. Why not be the first on your block to back up what you're saying?

It may not be the same exact story as the Zeitgeist film would have us believe, but it is enough to raise certain questions that the people running this site obviously do not want raised.

So you agree that the "Zeitgeist" film's claims are invalid, but say that yours are not? I seriously doubt that, but, personally, I welcome you to try to prove yours.


In the Zeitgeist Challenge video it says, and I quote "believing the Zeitgeist version of history, is a belief _base_d on faith, not on historical scientific fact," well, I would have to say that there is no better way to describe a person's faith in Christianity, it all comes down to faith. Do you have faith in Jesus or do you not? Because, to date, there is no historical scientific fact proving the existence of the figure known as Jesus Christ.

Depends on what your level of "proof" is. If it's high enough, then we could also use that standard to show that it's not proven that Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great have had their existence proven, though the level of evidence for their having existed is about the same as it is for Jesus of Nazareth. The difference is that while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Jesus, Caesar and Alexander, there is absolutely none to back up "Zeitgeist"'s claims. I'd like to see if there is any to back up yours.

The bottom line here people is that you cannot believe anything anyone tells you. You are being persuaded by quite convincing propaganda from both sides.

I agree. Except that Christianity has the evidence to back up its claims, while "Zeitgeist" does not. They claim that they do, but every time someone asks them to provide the evidence they claim to have, they refuse to provide it. Why wouldn't they parade it for all the world to see, if it actually existed? Will you?

You need to go out and do your own research and use that for the formation of your own beliefs.

I agree. I did that. That's why I'm no longer an atheist.

Isn't it better to think for yourself anyway?

Absolutely! And that's what I'm doing. I go where the evidence points, and so far, it's been pointing towards Jesus. Not towards the claims of people claiming that the Jesus story is _base_d on earlier "godmen" stories or any kind of solar crap.

It's funny that when someone's telling you to think for yourself, 99 times out of 100, they're trying to convince you to think like they do.

David

Wow, congratulations. You just did a fantastic job misinterpreting and twisting my words. You must be very proud.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. But first of all, since Jesus being born on 12/25 is one of the things that they have challenged the "Zeitgeisters" to prove, I'm guessing the people running this site don't believe in the 12/25 birthdate, either (they can correct me if I'm wrong). Their purpose is to show that Zeitgeist has made a whole lot of unsupported claims, and the ones about these deities also having 12/25 birthdates is just a few of them. I don't see how proving that Zeitgeist made a bunch of unsupported claims is pointless. They have. That's the point.

The people running this site are not asking people to prove that Jesus was born on December 25th, they want people to prove that other deities were born on December 25th. Jesus is not in question here. What I am trying to say is that if Jesus was not really born on December 25th, then all of the comparisons to the date of December 25th made in the Zeitgeist film are invalid, because if Jesus doesn't actually have those characteristics, then there is no basis for comparison. That would make this site completely pointless. Everything said in Zeitgeist part one can be written off right there. So the question then becomes, why do we attribute these characteristics to Jesus if there is no evidence for it? The people running this site say that there is no proof that these other deities were born on December 25th, and I'm saying, and you seem to agree, that there is no proof of this for Jesus either. So where does this belief come from? It has to come from somewhere, right?

If someone looks hard enough for a pattern, they'll usually find it whether it's actually there or not. So the fact that you've found a pattern proves nothing. I've seen people use these exact same methods to "prove" that Napoleon Bonaparte and the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team fit the same patterns. Does that prove to you that Napoleon and the Maple Leafs are fictional, too?

I'm not really sure what you mean about all of that Napoleon stuff, so I will just ignore it, but you seem to say yourself that Jesus was not born on December 25th, or at least that there is no evidence for it, but you sure seem to defend against the solar aspect quite strongly. I wonder why this is? If Jesus does not actually have these characteristics, then why should the solar connection have any bearing on anyone's belief in Jesus? I will say nothing more than if you want to keep your eyes, and your mind, closed and not actually look at this correlation (I don't know why you call it a pattern), then I will let you think what you want. However, I for one think it is quite clear that this story of the December 25th birthday, which you yourself say probably does not apply to Jesus, is quite obviously the story of the Sun's movements; something that would have undoubtedly been quite important to the ancients.

That's the type of claim that the people who run this website are asking you to show. Can you? So far, all I've seen from "copycat Christ" people are a lot of claims that they refuse to back up. Why not be the first on your block to back up what you're saying?

I will now take the incredibly long time it will take me to copy some passages out of a few text books I have in front of me to show you just two examples of the dying and resurrected god archetype that the people running this site claim do not exist. Now mind you, I do not mean to defend Zeitgeist here, it is clear that there is some misinformation presented in the film, and I in no way am trying to say that these myths are the exact same as the Jesus story, but there most certainly are some similarities. I will first give a quote from a text book called "World Mythology: An Anthology of the Great Myths and Epics" by Donna Rosenberg. This from the third edition, and concerns the high Egyptian god Osiris, not Horus as Zeitgeist tells us. This passage can be found on page 18. "Finally, using knowledge that her father, Thoth, had taught her, she skillfully uttered the magical words of power in a way that she knew would bring temporary life to Osiris. Osiris returned to life! With delight, Isis embraced her great love and enjoyed him for as long as she could. Then, when Osiris once again lay lifeless and still, Isis replaced his body in the box." There you have it, the death and resurrection of Osiris.
Now I will share with you a passage from Edith Hamilton's "Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes." This book is considered to be the foremost authority on Greek mythology. Let us see what she has to say about Dionysus on page 61 of my 1969 edition of the book. "Like Persephone Dionysus died with the coming of the cold. Unlike her, his death was terrible: he was torn to pieces, in some stories by the Titans, in others by Hera's orders. He was always brought back to life; he died and rose again. It was his joyful resurrection they celebrated in his theater, but the idea of terrible deeds done to him and done by men under his influence was too closely associated with him ever to be forgotten. He was more than the suffering god. He was the tragic god. There was none other."
Now i do not think that anyone on this site has better credentials than either of these two authors, nor do I think it could be argued that either of these myths came after the time of Christ. These are just a few examples, I'm sure if you take any of the deities named in Zeitgeist, such as Mithra or Attis, and do some homework, you will most undoubtedly find at least a few more similarities, but I will leave that for anyone else to do on their own.

Depends on what your level of "proof" is. If it's high enough, then we could also use that standard to show that it's not proven that Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great have had their existence proven, though the level of evidence for their having existed is about the same as it is for Jesus of Nazareth. The difference is that while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for Jesus, Caesar and Alexander, there is absolutely none to back up "Zeitgeist"'s claims. I'd like to see if there is any to back up yours.

That's just hogwash. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar, who lived before the time of Christ, because his own writings survive, as well as plenty of documented evidence of his military conquests, but the fact remains that outside of the bible there is no proof that Jesus ever walked the Earth. So once again I say, it is a matter of faith. Either you believe or you don't. Or do you have some kind of factual evidence that the rest of the world has not seen? So, go on show me, where is this "overwhelming amount of evidence" that you speak of? I would wager that it is all FAITH _base_D.

I agree. Except that Christianity has the evidence to back up its claims, while "Zeitgeist" does not. They claim that they do, but every time someone asks them to provide the evidence they claim to have, they refuse to provide it. Why wouldn't they parade it for all the world to see, if it actually existed? Will you?

Once again, I am not defending Zeitgeist, but it does raise some very interesting questions, much like the Da Vinci code did, but I will ask you again, where is the evidence to back up Christianity's claims that you speak of?

It's funny that when someone's telling you to think for yourself, 99 times out of 100, they're trying to convince you to think like they do.

You thoroughly offend me with this statement, sir. When I say it is a matter of faith, then that is what I mean. If you have the faith to believe than good for you, If not, then that is fine too, just as long as your beliefs are your own. Nowhere in anything I have written have I tried to persuade people to think like me. Period. End of story. All I would like is for people to go out and look this stuff up themselves. If that is what you did and it led you to Christianity and away from atheism then I commend you. I'm sure you are a better person because of it. That is also what I did, and I may not be an atheist, but I am certainly not a Christian either. So I ask you, which one of us has the bias here?

The people running this site are not asking people to prove that Jesus was born on December 25th, they want people to prove that other deities were born on December 25th. Jesus is not in question here.

You might want to take a look at the “Requirements” page. They certainly are asking people to prove that Jesus was born on December 25th. It's the second to last thing on the list of things they're asking Zeitgeisters to prove.

What I am trying to say is that if Jesus was not really born on December 25th, then all of the comparisons to the date of December 25th made in the Zeitgeist film are invalid, because if Jesus doesn't actually have those characteristics, then there is no basis for comparison.

I agree. Showing that Horus or Krisha or Buddha was (per pre-Christian mythology) born on 12/25 would not constitute a comparison to the historical Jesus. But the point of this site is that Zeitgeist makes a whole lot of historically-inaccurate claims, which they're asking the fans of this movie to back up. This is one of them.

If this site was only about debunking comparisons to Jesus, I'd recommend that they take that one off. I have my own challenge site which is simply about proving comparisons to Jesus, and I've removed that one from consideration, personally. But if my site was about proving “Zeitgeist”, then I'd leave it on, of course.


That would make this site completely pointless. Everything said in Zeitgeist part one can be written off right there.

Then you don't understand the point of this site. It's about proving the claims Zeitgeist makes, that's all.

So the question then becomes, why do we attribute these characteristics to Jesus if there is no evidence for it? The people running this site say that there is no proof that these other deities were born on December 25th, and I'm saying, and you seem to agree, that there is no proof of this for Jesus either. So where does this belief come from? It has to come from somewhere, right?

Yes, and there seems to be some debate on that. But whatever the reason, it appears to have nothing to do with when Jesus of Nazareth was actually born. It appears to have been a general day of celebration for various causes and religions, so the Christians used it to get the followers, who were already used to celebrating on that day, to use it to celebrate Jesus.


I'm not really sure what you mean about all of that Napoleon stuff, so I will just ignore it,

Fair enough, but if you want to see what I'm talking about, go here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nappy.html

It's a text that uses the same kind of logic that people use when claiming that Jesus was a retelling of the solar myth, to show that Napoleon was also a retelling of the solar myth. Basically proving that, using that logic, you can claim that anything or anyone is a retelling of the solar myth. Someone else did one for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

but you seem to say yourself that Jesus was not born on December 25th, or at least that there is no evidence for it, but you sure seem to defend against the solar aspect quite strongly. I wonder why this is? If Jesus does not actually have these characteristics, then why should the solar connection have any bearing on anyone's belief in Jesus

That's what I'm wondering. Yet many people do. Go figure!

I will say nothing more than if you want to keep your eyes, and your mind, closed and not actually look at this correlation (I don't know why you call it a pattern), then I will let you think what you want. However, I for one think it is quite clear that this story of the December 25th birthday, which you yourself say probably does not apply to Jesus, is quite obviously the story of the Sun's movements; something that would have undoubtedly been quite important to the ancients.

Could be. But since 12/25 has absolutely nothing to do with the historical Jesus, then it's irrelevant.

I will now take the incredibly long time it will take me to copy some passages out of a few text books I have in front of me to show you just two examples of the dying and resurrected god archetype that the people running this site claim do not exist. Now mind you, I do not mean to defend Zeitgeist here, it is clear that there is some misinformation presented in the film, and I in no way am trying to say that these myths are the exact same as the Jesus story, but there most certainly are some similarities.

Of course. Just as you'll find similarities between any two stories. It's all a question of whether the similarities are significant enough to suggest that one story borrowed from the other. I don't know if you've ever seen the list of comparisons between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, but they're far more striking than any comparisons I've ever seen between Jesus and any earlier deity (as long as we're going with confirmed comparisons, and not just ones that Christ-mythers have claimed), yet they don't suggest that Kennedy was a fictional character _base_d on Lincoln (if you haven't seen it, google “lincoln kennedy coincidences” and you'll find several sites). I'm not denying that there are similarities between Jesus and earlier godmen. What I'm denying is that they're significant enough to suggest copycatting.


I will first give a quote from a text book called "World Mythology: An Anthology of the Great Myths and Epics" by Donna Rosenberg. This from the third edition, and concerns the high Egyptian god Osiris, not Horus as Zeitgeist tells us. This passage can be found on page 18. "Finally, using knowledge that her father, Thoth, had taught her, she skillfully uttered the magical words of power in a way that she knew would bring temporary life to Osiris. Osiris returned to life! With delight, Isis embraced her great love and enjoyed him for as long as she could. Then, when Osiris once again lay lifeless and still, Isis replaced his body in the box." There you have it, the death and resurrection of Osiris.
Now I will share with you a passage from Edith Hamilton's "Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes." This book is considered to be the foremost authority on Greek mythology. Let us see what she has to say about Dionysus on page 61 of my 1969 edition of the book. "Like Persephone Dionysus died with the coming of the cold. Unlike her, his death was terrible: he was torn to pieces, in some stories by the Titans, in others by Hera's orders. He was always brought back to life; he died and rose again. It was his joyful resurrection they celebrated in his theater, but the idea of terrible deeds done to him and done by men under his influence was too closely associated with him ever to be forgotten. He was more than the suffering god. He was the tragic god. There was none other."


Now i do not think that anyone on this site has better credentials than either of these two authors, nor do I think it could be argued that either of these myths came after the time of Christ. These are just a few examples, I'm sure if you take any of the deities named in Zeitgeist, such as Mithra or Attis, and do some homework, you will most undoubtedly find at least a few more similarities, but I will leave that for anyone else to do on their own.

I have done the research, and even have my own website about the subject (www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html). And, yes, both of the comparisons you just gave are confirmed as valid on my site. Again, my point isn't that there aren't comparisons, it's that the comparisons aren't significant enough to suggest copycatting.

That's just hogwash. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar, who lived before the time of Christ, because his own writings survive, as well as plenty of documented evidence of his military conquests, but the fact remains that outside of the bible there is no proof that Jesus ever walked the Earth. So once again I say, it is a matter of faith. Either you believe or you don't. Or do you have some kind of factual evidence that the rest of the world has not seen? So, go on show me, where is this "overwhelming amount of evidence" that you speak of? I would wager that it is all FAITH __base__D.


People who wrote about Jesus within 100 years of Jesus' time include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, Josephus (yes, one of the references was probably interpolated, but the other was not), Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. On top of that, we have many letters of the early church, and even letters from early enemies of Christianity which seem to acknowledge that Jesus at least existed, even if they doubt some of the surrounding events. That's far more evidence than we have for practically anyone who lived at Jesus' time or earlier. In fact, I find no compelling evidence of anyone questioning Jesus' existence in the first 1500 years after His time.

You're saying that the Biblical texts don't count as evidence for Jesus' existence, but I'd love to see your reasoning for this. Whatever it is, I'm sure I could come up with a variation on it to dismiss all of the evidence for Caesar and Alexander.

KingDavid8: It's funny that when someone's telling you to think for yourself, 99 times out of 100, they're trying to convince you to think like they do.

Minstrel: You thoroughly offend me with this statement, sir. When I say it is a matter of faith, then that is what I mean. If you have the faith to believe than good for you, If not, then that is fine too, just as long as your beliefs are your own. Nowhere in anything I have written have I tried to persuade people to think like me. Period. End of story.

You might want to go back and read your second post. Saying that the Jesus story is clearly _base_d on the story of the sun is certainly intended to be persuasive.

All I would like is for people to go out and look this stuff up themselves. If that is what you did and it led you to Christianity and away from atheism then I commend you. I'm sure you are a better person because of it. That is also what I did, and I may not be an atheist, but I am certainly not a Christian either. So I ask you, which one of us has the bias here?

Everyone has a bias of some sort. It's just a question of whether the evidence on which the bias is _base_d is valid or not. I have yet to see any significant evidence that the Jesus story was inspired by the movement of the sun or on early godmen stories, while I certainly have looked at the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and have found it persuasive. As for the “copycat” or “solar myth” claims, I have yet to even see the evidence.

David