So... what to make of this??
Christianity = ancient egyptian religion rewrapped?
911 inside job?
Amero?
North American Union?
Global government?
Can sevastase/devilsmile or someone fill me in?
Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that
it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."Examining some of specific claims made by the film, Forbes points out that while there are parallels between the story of Jesus and many other ancient mythological figures,
many of the ones mentioned in the film are false, as are other aspects of the film's description of these myths. Forbes states that there is
no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin, and claims that Ra was the Egyptian god of the sun, not Horus. Similarly, neither Krishna nor Dionysus nor Attis were ever said to be born of virgins, as Krishna was the eighth child of his parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, and Dionysus' mother, Semele, had slept with Zeus. Forbes asserts that Horus was not adored by three kings, and that neither he nor Attis were crucified nor resurrected. Forbes and interviewer John Dickson, founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, took issue with what they perceived as an argument centered on the homophony between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun, and pointing out that those words are not homophonic in ancient Egyptian, Latin or Greek. Forbes also points out that neither Horus, Attis nor Jesus were born on December 25, as the ancient Egyptian calendar did not include the month of December found in the Latin calendar, and that the date of Christmas is a celebratory tradition historically derived from Sol Invictus and Saturnalia, rather than the Bible.
Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus did not exist, noting that
the list of supposed contemporaneous historians alleged by the film to have not mentioned Jesus is actually a list of geographers, literature professors, poets, philosophers and writers on farming or gardening, who would not be expected to mention him, and that the modern sources cited in the film are either experts in fields other than ancient history, such as German literature, or uncredentialed amateur Egyptologists. Forbes challenges the film's allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was doctored by pointing out that
Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, and that only one of these mentions is believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages, in order to change an already existing mention of him. Forbes also argues that while Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity, it was Theodosius I who made it compulsory later in the 4th century, and that contrary to the film's thesis, Constantine did not invent the historical Jesus, as early records show that his historicity was already a key element of early Christianity prior to Constantine's conversion to it.
http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/zeitgeist.html
