This is very interesting and I didn't realize this much stuff was in Zeitgeist because I'd only read summaries. However, every specific time I look into history I find the covenant people had the tradition first and the claim that the covenant people were the counterfeiters was always projection. It is totally understandable that the devil is always counterfeiting, and that he then has verifiers that verify the counterfeit and hold the genuine to be faulty. The truth can always be discerned.
I may or may not take time to review specifics here, but my quick glances don't show anything troubling to the Christian revelation. I've recently pointed out that Jesus was not born on December 25, so the claims that various demigods were is rather comparing one lie with another. However, Jesus was conceived in winter, and my best guess is that it was recorded as being on December 25 Julian (now December 23 Gregorian proleptic), with indirect evidence from Simeon and direct evidence from a very strong chain of tradition to Hippolytus. This year I have found no evidence of December 25 being significant in itself for pagan reasons prior to its use among the covenant people, and when I've tried to find this in the past it's always been a late counterfeit, so I'll be happy to report what I have when I have it.
Horus: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Isis), "Mary", east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Light, Anointed, Son of God, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (24 points). Added later: Annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef) (making 26 points).
Attis of Phrygia: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Nana), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (5 points).
Krishna: virgin (Devaki), east star, miracles, disciples, resurrected (5 points).
Dionysius: virgin, 25 Dec birth, traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine*, King of Kings*, Son of God, Only-Begotten*, Alpha and Omega*, resurrected (11 points, *4 added to Horus).
Jesus: Anointed, annunciation, virgin, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, 25 Dec birth, east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Son of God, Light, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected, rejects Bull (golden) (27 points); obviously unstated: water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten, Sunday worship (5 points). Significant adds (not present in previous): Bethlehem (House of Bread), Savior, ascension to heaven, coming again in clouds, crown of thorns, Fish symbol, Waterbearer at Passover (7 points, total 39).
Now I could short-circuit must of this presentation with a simple observation, and maybe it will spare the more detailed review:
If the ancients interpreted the stars as a divinity's narrative, that doesn't disprove any selected narrative as the film implies it should. Rather, if a pattern existed then it was placed there by the cosmos, and any narrative that matches the pattern has a claim on divinity, a claim that can be sufficiently proven or disproven by accord with facts. If one could narrate the alignment without it actually happening, that is disproof; if one could arrange the alignment to happen, that is not much proof; and if nobody arranged the alignment that contributes toward sufficient proof. By referring claims back to the stars rather than to paganism, the video gives the Cosmos (God) first rights over the meaning of the symbols.
That short-circuits research into whether any past claim was true, because even if the claims were totally true historically they don't prove any divine claimant copied from another (which would be used to invalidate a later claim), they prove that all claims have a common heavenly source. Usually it's claimed that Jesus copied from pagans and is invalidated, but when the film makes it that Jesus and pagans both copied from the stars it brings it back to what God put in place already.
If Sirius means east star and Light, if it aligns on December 24-25, if Orion means three kings, if Virgo means virgin mother and wheated (Bethlehem), if the solstice means Sunday worship and 3-day burial (22-24) and resurrection and Savior, if Crux means crucifixion (e.g. ankh), if the Zodiac means followers and 12, if sunrise means ascension to heaven and coming again in clouds and Son of God, if rays mean crown of thorns, if Taurus means rejection of the (golden) Bull ca. 2000, if Pisces means use of Fish symbol ca. 1, if Aquarius means the Passover waterbearing Man, then none of those (20) symbols are uniquely pagan or Christian, and every religion that incorporates those symbols is merely echoing an archetypal pattern already God-given. If narratives are invented or arranged to fit, there is no problem if deception isn't used; if historical facts align without direct human arrangement, it may be a valid divine communication based on a valid archetype. In the same way, all Biblical references to eras of Bull, Ram, Fish, and Man are not pagan or Christian in origin but are merely responsive to the spring sign of the age.
Well, that covers all the data up until the plagiarism charges start, out of the blue as it were. TLDR: The truth is, when one claims an aspect of one narrative aligns with astronomy, it does not prove or disprove that narrative one bit, nor prove or disprove any other related narrative. The ordinary, previous argument "the pagans had it first" is totally upended by the argument "the stars had it first". If for instance the pagans had created the ankh deliberately and only to symbolize some evil or demon or abusive power, that would be a bad thing to counterfeit, but if the ankh merely means the alignment of Sol and Crux then it is neutral and might well refer to something put there by the Christian God.
Thus even if Luxor 1500 BC depicts Horus as born of Virgo at the winter solstice and adored by the Three Kings of Orion, that being a literary narrative drawn from the stars doesn't mean that if it were to happen for real it would be pagan. It means that if God chooses to work this way it'd be consistent and the Egyptians would merely have been correctly anticipating; and if God never chooses to work this way it's only a literary device. (To the degree that the Egyptians claim Horus did those things historically when there was no evidence he did, that would be deception, but that is something added to the system rather than an attempt to discern from God's stars what God might do.)
The idea that Noah is plagiarized is taken from the idea that Gilgamesh is very old (2600 BC, but Sumerian dating before about 2000 is very sketchy) and Noah is very new (thanks 1800s higher critics, who yet in spite of themselves have demonstrated that covenant structure indicates Moses relied on earlier sources prior to 2000 himself). In reality, Noah has as good a claim as any on being closest to the original. I haven't looked into the parallels between Sargon and Moses, but I doubt I'll be surprised when I do; I recall the actual Sargon myth going quite differently. He also cites Manou, Minos, and Mises, and promotes their similarity, but a quick check shows that Mises is largely invented recently. It is said to come from Voltaire by "D. M. Murdock", but the name is not in his Philosophical Dictionary and "Murdock" doesn't give a further specification, so it appears a fresh fabrication (Google shows no results for the alleged Voltaire quote before 2012). The relationship to Manou and Minos is uncompelling; I think we can dismiss Manou as having nothing in common but lawgiver beginning with M, and Minos as later than known manuscripts of Moses.
The relationship between the (second table) Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead is well-known and played up in The Abolition of Man. The fact that Moses and the Egyptians came up with very similar laws (aka the laws of Noah) does not prove they are pagan, in fact it tends toward indicating they are moral absolutes. Similarly, Egypt allegedly had "baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth, death and resurrection, crucifixion, the Ark of the Covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover". Well, not really, but the general concept indicated by all these names was common to religious growth in all societies, and it would be natural for religions as developed as Egyptian and Christian to have comments on all these.
Justin rightly gets the last word. The fact that Jesus had attributes in common with mythological divinities does not disprove Jesus but rather proves that his attributes were common knowledge. What proves Jesus's divinity is the historical evidence that these things happened, which didn't happen historically to Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysius, Mithra, Jovians, or Perseus. None of those others was attested to be a historical person who had several named historical biographers in his own generation. All of those others are narratives only, never presented as more than a cinematic universe. And it's no wonder that enemies of truth would try to create narratives from the stars that anticipate what might happen historically.
Since 20 of the points of agreement are stated to be astronomical in origin, the short-circuit works to dispel the larger half of the claim. There are 19 points remaining of similarity between Jesus and other archetypes: Anointed, annunciation, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten. The very few similarities of Moses to Sargon also remain. ("Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal midwife.") However, given the film's apparent partnership with Murdock the Moses denier, it's likely these claims are also highly inflated. It's rather tiresome to research a huge number of claims of December 25 and the like to find that they are all false, but sometimes I exert myself. The one claim I selected to check here, "Mises of Egypt", seems to have been invented in 2012, so I have no fears about the remainder.
This is very interesting and I didn't realize this much stuff was in Zeitgeist because I'd only read summaries. However, every specific time I look into history I find the covenant people had the tradition first and the claim that the covenant people were the counterfeiters was always projection. It is totally understandable that the devil is always counterfeiting, and that he then has verifiers that verify the counterfeit and hold the genuine to be faulty. The truth can always be discerned.
I may or may not take time to review specifics here, but my quick glances don't show anything troubling to the Christian revelation. I've recently pointed out that Jesus was not born on December 25, so the claims that various demigods were is rather comparing one lie with another. However, Jesus was conceived in winter, and my best guess is that it was recorded as being on December 25 Julian (now December 23 Gregorian proleptic), with indirect evidence from Simeon and direct evidence from a very strong chain of tradition to Hippolytus. This year I have found no evidence of December 25 being significant in itself for pagan reasons prior to its use among the covenant people, and when I've tried to find this in the past it's always been a late counterfeit, so I'll be happy to report what I have when I have it.
Just to analyze the initial content more clearly:
Horus: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Isis), "Mary", east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Light, Anointed, Son of God, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (24 points). Added later: Annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef) (making 26 points).
Attis of Phrygia: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Nana), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (5 points).
Krishna: virgin (Devaki), east star, miracles, disciples, resurrected (5 points).
Dionysius: virgin, 25 Dec birth, traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine*, King of Kings*, Son of God, Only-Begotten*, Alpha and Omega*, resurrected (11 points, *4 added to Horus).
Mithra: virgin, 25 Dec birth, disciples, 12, miracles, buried 3 days, resurrected, Truth, Light, Sunday worship*, rejects Bull* (10 points, *2 added to Horus).
Jesus: Anointed, annunciation, virgin, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, 25 Dec birth, east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Son of God, Light, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected, rejects Bull (golden) (27 points); obviously unstated: water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten, Sunday worship (5 points). Significant adds (not present in previous): Bethlehem (House of Bread), Savior, ascension to heaven, coming again in clouds, crown of thorns, Fish symbol, Waterbearer at Passover (7 points, total 39).
Now I could short-circuit must of this presentation with a simple observation, and maybe it will spare the more detailed review:
If the ancients interpreted the stars as a divinity's narrative, that doesn't disprove any selected narrative as the film implies it should. Rather, if a pattern existed then it was placed there by the cosmos, and any narrative that matches the pattern has a claim on divinity, a claim that can be sufficiently proven or disproven by accord with facts. If one could narrate the alignment without it actually happening, that is disproof; if one could arrange the alignment to happen, that is not much proof; and if nobody arranged the alignment that contributes toward sufficient proof. By referring claims back to the stars rather than to paganism, the video gives the Cosmos (God) first rights over the meaning of the symbols.
That short-circuits research into whether any past claim was true, because even if the claims were totally true historically they don't prove any divine claimant copied from another (which would be used to invalidate a later claim), they prove that all claims have a common heavenly source. Usually it's claimed that Jesus copied from pagans and is invalidated, but when the film makes it that Jesus and pagans both copied from the stars it brings it back to what God put in place already.
If Sirius means east star and Light, if it aligns on December 24-25, if Orion means three kings, if Virgo means virgin mother and wheated (Bethlehem), if the solstice means Sunday worship and 3-day burial (22-24) and resurrection and Savior, if Crux means crucifixion (e.g. ankh), if the Zodiac means followers and 12, if sunrise means ascension to heaven and coming again in clouds and Son of God, if rays mean crown of thorns, if Taurus means rejection of the (golden) Bull ca. 2000, if Pisces means use of Fish symbol ca. 1, if Aquarius means the Passover waterbearing Man, then none of those (20) symbols are uniquely pagan or Christian, and every religion that incorporates those symbols is merely echoing an archetypal pattern already God-given. If narratives are invented or arranged to fit, there is no problem if deception isn't used; if historical facts align without direct human arrangement, it may be a valid divine communication based on a valid archetype. In the same way, all Biblical references to eras of Bull, Ram, Fish, and Man are not pagan or Christian in origin but are merely responsive to the spring sign of the age.
Well, that covers all the data up until the plagiarism charges start, out of the blue as it were. TLDR: The truth is, when one claims an aspect of one narrative aligns with astronomy, it does not prove or disprove that narrative one bit, nor prove or disprove any other related narrative. The ordinary, previous argument "the pagans had it first" is totally upended by the argument "the stars had it first". If for instance the pagans had created the ankh deliberately and only to symbolize some evil or demon or abusive power, that would be a bad thing to counterfeit, but if the ankh merely means the alignment of Sol and Crux then it is neutral and might well refer to something put there by the Christian God.
Thus even if Luxor 1500 BC depicts Horus as born of Virgo at the winter solstice and adored by the Three Kings of Orion, that being a literary narrative drawn from the stars doesn't mean that if it were to happen for real it would be pagan. It means that if God chooses to work this way it'd be consistent and the Egyptians would merely have been correctly anticipating; and if God never chooses to work this way it's only a literary device. (To the degree that the Egyptians claim Horus did those things historically when there was no evidence he did, that would be deception, but that is something added to the system rather than an attempt to discern from God's stars what God might do.)
The idea that Noah is plagiarized is taken from the idea that Gilgamesh is very old (2600 BC, but Sumerian dating before about 2000 is very sketchy) and Noah is very new (thanks 1800s higher critics, who yet in spite of themselves have demonstrated that covenant structure indicates Moses relied on earlier sources prior to 2000 himself). In reality, Noah has as good a claim as any on being closest to the original. I haven't looked into the parallels between Sargon and Moses, but I doubt I'll be surprised when I do; I recall the actual Sargon myth going quite differently. He also cites Manou, Minos, and Mises, and promotes their similarity, but a quick check shows that Mises is largely invented recently. It is said to come from Voltaire by "D. M. Murdock", but the name is not in his Philosophical Dictionary and "Murdock" doesn't give a further specification, so it appears a fresh fabrication (Google shows no results for the alleged Voltaire quote before 2012). The relationship to Manou and Minos is uncompelling; I think we can dismiss Manou as having nothing in common but lawgiver beginning with M, and Minos as later than known manuscripts of Moses.
The relationship between the (second table) Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead is well-known and played up in The Abolition of Man. The fact that Moses and the Egyptians came up with very similar laws (aka the laws of Noah) does not prove they are pagan, in fact it tends toward indicating they are moral absolutes. Similarly, Egypt allegedly had "baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth, death and resurrection, crucifixion, the Ark of the Covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover". Well, not really, but the general concept indicated by all these names was common to religious growth in all societies, and it would be natural for religions as developed as Egyptian and Christian to have comments on all these.
Justin rightly gets the last word. The fact that Jesus had attributes in common with mythological divinities does not disprove Jesus but rather proves that his attributes were common knowledge. What proves Jesus's divinity is the historical evidence that these things happened, which didn't happen historically to Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysius, Mithra, Jovians, or Perseus. None of those others was attested to be a historical person who had several named historical biographers in his own generation. All of those others are narratives only, never presented as more than a cinematic universe. And it's no wonder that enemies of truth would try to create narratives from the stars that anticipate what might happen historically.
Since 20 of the points of agreement are stated to be astronomical in origin, the short-circuit works to dispel the larger half of the claim. There are 19 points remaining of similarity between Jesus and other archetypes: Anointed, annunciation, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten. The very few similarities of Moses to Sargon also remain. ("Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal midwife.") However, given the film's apparent partnership with Murdock the Moses denier, it's likely these claims are also highly inflated. It's rather tiresome to research a huge number of claims of December 25 and the like to find that they are all false, but sometimes I exert myself. The one claim I selected to check here, "Mises of Egypt", seems to have been invented in 2012, so I have no fears about the remainder.
Holy fuck do I miss Voat's 10,000 character limit.