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.
So the real Sargon early life is that he was son of a gardener (i.e. he was a Noachite) and the unpredictable cupbearer of Ur-Zababa of Kish. Not a single match with Moses at all, but a close match to the Biblical Nimrod (whom I have more accurately as Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin). Sure enough, the much later Legend of Sargon arises in the 600s BC and combines the Mosaic elements to the older elements of oral tradition. There is the "basket of rushes", the being "cast ... into the river", the being "lifted ... out", and becoming "son [and] reared". However, the mother's motive is not legal compliance as in Exodus but the mother remaining "secret"; the rescuer is not a midwife but the male gardener, given the name Akki that probably reflects Sargon's city of Akkad. The article scoffs at Moses and acts like the legend can be safely transported back 1600 years (at the same time as Moses's legend is being fast-forwarded about 1000 years). So this is a classic bait and switch. As I pointed out, Mosaic covenant formulae date from the period 2000-1500 by comparison with suzerainty treaties, which changed form after that period, so we know that Torah materials are older than the full Legend of Sargon, but in the link we read not a whit of literary criticism of the language of the 600s versus the 2200s. Plus, as usual for the telephone game, the OP complicates matters by misgendering Akki, and also implies that infant exposure and abandonment is to be comparable to the legal compliance and familial oversight attributed to Jochebed and Miriam. Now then, messianic characteristics not attributed to astronomy:
Jesus: 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.
Horus: "Mary", taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Anointed, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef).
Krishna: miracles, disciples.
Dionysius: traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine, King of Kings, Only-Begotten, Alpha and Omega.
Mithra: miracles, Truth.
I think that (like Attis, who is entirely astronomical) we can dismiss Krishna and Mithra immediately as not being significant.
The video shows its source for Horus, which turns out to be Gerald Massey, Ancient Egypt vol. 2, 1907, pp. 907-914. I find that Warner Wallace reviews many of Massey's claims reliably in one place; Massey is presenting a skeptical view that attempts to tie together as many strands as possible that do not actually align (as later Egyptologists generally recognize) and that are poorly sourced. However, Massey gives:
"The Mysteries = The miracles": This first most generic line doesn't really give any correlation because the supernatural or unexplained element is present in every religion.
"Meri or Nut, the mother-heaven = Mary, as Regina Coeli": We see that "Meri" is an Egyptian title meaning "beloved" applied to all kinds of gods and objects. I have separately shown, from the American Heritage Semitic index, that the Egyptian and Hebrew forms of the word for beloved are cognate with a common Akkadian root "rwm". So it being a widely used appellation in both Egyptian and Hebrew does not indicate borrowing; rather "Meri" is not unique to Isis but was selected by Massey from among many epithets for its resonance. The connection that Nut is also called beloved and represents heaven is similarly forced.
"Anup, the Precursor of Horus = John, the forerunner of Jesus the Christ"; "Anup, the Baptizer = John the Baptist": Nothing about age 30, and this is likely Anubis anointing the dead, not baptizing or forerunning. This one is regarded as totally discredited in Massey; I suppose if a dog licking the dead counts as baptism, anything goes.
"Horus the Good Shepherd, with the crook upon his shoulder - Jesus the Good Shepherd, with the lamb or kid upon his shoulder": So this one is only iconographic, not an actual title. The shepherd's crook represented kingship in Egypt even in predynastic times; I suppose that since King David was also a shepherd this might overlap, but there is no "good shepherd" text for Horus as if it's an extant concept (Wallace agrees).
"Horus as the lamb = Jesus as the lamb": Not "lamb of God". Murdock makes this merely a reference to Aries. Horus is also connected to the Fish despite his antiquity (outside of the Fish eon), indicating the uselessness of such an approach.
"Horus of twelve years = Jesus of twelve years"; "Horus made a man of thirty years in his baptism = Jesus, the man of thirty years in his baptism"; "Iu (em-hetep) the child-teacher in the temple = The Child-Jesus as teacher in the Temple": Nothing further given. Wallace finds no original source describing Horus at 12 or 30. I pointed out that there is no anticipatory baptism of Horus anywhere. A search just returns me to Massey: Here is an unwieldy selection of him first speaking of "Jesus, or Iu-em-hetep" and blithely saying immediately after discussing Jesus, "Iu-em-hetep is portrayed as the youthful sage and precocious teacher. He is the 'heir of the temple,' depicted as the teacher in the temple; the boy of twelve years who wears the skull-cap of wisdom, and sits in the seat of learning. He holds a papyrus on his knee and is in the act of unrolling it for his discourse. This is he who personated the divine Word in human form as the wise and wondrous child of whom the tales of the infancy were told." This sounds like special pleading rather than any accurate Egyptian sources (which have no skullcaps, no age 12, no unrolling scroll), and it's possible the appendix I am quoting is relying on this hallucination.
"Horus as Iusa, the exorcizer of evil spirits as the Word = Jesus, the caster out of demons with a word": There is no "Iusa" and Massey gives it as a variant of "Iu-Su", which is stringing two names together indiscriminately. Wallace states that such a word does not exist in Egypt and there is no evidence Horus exorcised demons.
"Horus the word-made-truth = Jesus the doer of the word": This title, by Massey's analogy with "word-made-flesh", is clearly not an Egyptian original. Wallace finds the alleged title "the Truth the Light" does not appear in Egyptian history. Massey may be referring back to his own prior claim by equating this Truth with the earlier Word of exorcism (but not sourcing either). And that's all we have for healing the sick, but Jesus made many other healings than exorcisms.
"Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ": Wallace points out that "krst" is not a title but means "burial" (not "anointed" ruler). Probably a false etymology.
"Horus walking the water = Jesus walking the water": No source given. Wallace denies any such passage.
"Horus the raiser of the dead = Jesus the raiser of the dead"; "Horus the raiser up of Asar = Jesus the raiser up of Lazarus": Exact same as previous. Asar is Osiris, who was raised by Isis, not Horus.
The appendix does not refer to "ministering" or "traveling", which are too generic to be taken as marks alone unless they were tied to a larger narrative. There is no reference to "betraying" by Typhon (a Greek serpentine giant overlaid onto Egyptian Set, but not noted for betrayal).
Massey's graphic on page 757 is also used in the video, taken from the temple of Luxor. It's labeled "The Annunciation, Conception, Birth, and Adoration of the Child". This appears to be the source for alleged annunciation by Taht (Thoth) and impregnation by Kneph (Nef). However, this is a known artifact constructed by Amenhotep III to depict a divine birth ca. 1400 for himself. In this legend his mother is not stated to be a virgin, she is not impregnated by a spirit but by Amun taking the form of Amenhotep's father Thutmose IV, his birth was (apparently) in a palace rather than a stable, and Massey arbitrarily selects three men out of a large group of attendants and designates them kings. So there is no special relationship of any of these events to the story of Christ. It is clear that the worship of Amenhotep and the special status of his mother followed the ordinary track of incarnation narratives already known (and anticipated in Genesis 6), but the various new turns taken in narrating the birth of Jesus are completely extraordinary.
It should suffice that a large collection of titles of Dionysius does not include "King of Kings", "Only-Begotten", or "Alpha and Omega"; that him being a traveler, minister, or miracle workers is insignificant; and that, as god of wine, there are reports of him producing wine (most notably Pausanias 6.26.2 as to Elis and Andros, which does not mention provenance from water and is 2nd century AD; also Diodoros, Pliny, Plutarch, who all wrote later than Jesus's life).
TLDR: Zeitgeist is resurrecting the failed methods and rejected interpretations of Gerald Massey with little new content in an attempt to create another stunning-looking Lincoln-Kennedy parallel that fails fact checks just as badly. Sargon's late legend postdates conservative dating of Moses, Dionysius's turning water to wine comes from several sources all after Jesus, and all the notable parallels with Horus (apart from astronomy-sourced) arise from one appendix and one illustration of Massey that are discredited for their wild imagination, free association of unrelated ideas, and horrendous sourcing practice. Disappointing that these always go the same way. One factor from Massey that can be taken appropriately in its context is Amenhotep III writing his own divine birth narrative in the 14th century BC, which is part of the flow of hero narratives that already existed among monotheists and polytheists alike but that does not anticipate any special detail of Jesus's birth.
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.
Yeah thanks.
So the real Sargon early life is that he was son of a gardener (i.e. he was a Noachite) and the unpredictable cupbearer of Ur-Zababa of Kish. Not a single match with Moses at all, but a close match to the Biblical Nimrod (whom I have more accurately as Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin). Sure enough, the much later Legend of Sargon arises in the 600s BC and combines the Mosaic elements to the older elements of oral tradition. There is the "basket of rushes", the being "cast ... into the river", the being "lifted ... out", and becoming "son [and] reared". However, the mother's motive is not legal compliance as in Exodus but the mother remaining "secret"; the rescuer is not a midwife but the male gardener, given the name Akki that probably reflects Sargon's city of Akkad. The article scoffs at Moses and acts like the legend can be safely transported back 1600 years (at the same time as Moses's legend is being fast-forwarded about 1000 years). So this is a classic bait and switch. As I pointed out, Mosaic covenant formulae date from the period 2000-1500 by comparison with suzerainty treaties, which changed form after that period, so we know that Torah materials are older than the full Legend of Sargon, but in the link we read not a whit of literary criticism of the language of the 600s versus the 2200s. Plus, as usual for the telephone game, the OP complicates matters by misgendering Akki, and also implies that infant exposure and abandonment is to be comparable to the legal compliance and familial oversight attributed to Jochebed and Miriam. Now then, messianic characteristics not attributed to astronomy:
Jesus: 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.
Horus: "Mary", taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Anointed, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef).
Krishna: miracles, disciples.
Dionysius: traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine, King of Kings, Only-Begotten, Alpha and Omega.
Mithra: miracles, Truth.
I think that (like Attis, who is entirely astronomical) we can dismiss Krishna and Mithra immediately as not being significant.
The video shows its source for Horus, which turns out to be Gerald Massey, Ancient Egypt vol. 2, 1907, pp. 907-914. I find that Warner Wallace reviews many of Massey's claims reliably in one place; Massey is presenting a skeptical view that attempts to tie together as many strands as possible that do not actually align (as later Egyptologists generally recognize) and that are poorly sourced. However, Massey gives:
"The Mysteries = The miracles": This first most generic line doesn't really give any correlation because the supernatural or unexplained element is present in every religion.
"Meri or Nut, the mother-heaven = Mary, as Regina Coeli": We see that "Meri" is an Egyptian title meaning "beloved" applied to all kinds of gods and objects. I have separately shown, from the American Heritage Semitic index, that the Egyptian and Hebrew forms of the word for beloved are cognate with a common Akkadian root "rwm". So it being a widely used appellation in both Egyptian and Hebrew does not indicate borrowing; rather "Meri" is not unique to Isis but was selected by Massey from among many epithets for its resonance. The connection that Nut is also called beloved and represents heaven is similarly forced.
"Anup, the Precursor of Horus = John, the forerunner of Jesus the Christ"; "Anup, the Baptizer = John the Baptist": Nothing about age 30, and this is likely Anubis anointing the dead, not baptizing or forerunning. This one is regarded as totally discredited in Massey; I suppose if a dog licking the dead counts as baptism, anything goes.
"Horus the Good Shepherd, with the crook upon his shoulder - Jesus the Good Shepherd, with the lamb or kid upon his shoulder": So this one is only iconographic, not an actual title. The shepherd's crook represented kingship in Egypt even in predynastic times; I suppose that since King David was also a shepherd this might overlap, but there is no "good shepherd" text for Horus as if it's an extant concept (Wallace agrees).
"Horus as the lamb = Jesus as the lamb": Not "lamb of God". Murdock makes this merely a reference to Aries. Horus is also connected to the Fish despite his antiquity (outside of the Fish eon), indicating the uselessness of such an approach.
"Horus of twelve years = Jesus of twelve years"; "Horus made a man of thirty years in his baptism = Jesus, the man of thirty years in his baptism"; "Iu (em-hetep) the child-teacher in the temple = The Child-Jesus as teacher in the Temple": Nothing further given. Wallace finds no original source describing Horus at 12 or 30. I pointed out that there is no anticipatory baptism of Horus anywhere. A search just returns me to Massey: Here is an unwieldy selection of him first speaking of "Jesus, or Iu-em-hetep" and blithely saying immediately after discussing Jesus, "Iu-em-hetep is portrayed as the youthful sage and precocious teacher. He is the 'heir of the temple,' depicted as the teacher in the temple; the boy of twelve years who wears the skull-cap of wisdom, and sits in the seat of learning. He holds a papyrus on his knee and is in the act of unrolling it for his discourse. This is he who personated the divine Word in human form as the wise and wondrous child of whom the tales of the infancy were told." This sounds like special pleading rather than any accurate Egyptian sources (which have no skullcaps, no age 12, no unrolling scroll), and it's possible the appendix I am quoting is relying on this hallucination.
"Horus as Iusa, the exorcizer of evil spirits as the Word = Jesus, the caster out of demons with a word": There is no "Iusa" and Massey gives it as a variant of "Iu-Su", which is stringing two names together indiscriminately. Wallace states that such a word does not exist in Egypt and there is no evidence Horus exorcised demons.
"Horus the word-made-truth = Jesus the doer of the word": This title, by Massey's analogy with "word-made-flesh", is clearly not an Egyptian original. Wallace finds the alleged title "the Truth the Light" does not appear in Egyptian history. Massey may be referring back to his own prior claim by equating this Truth with the earlier Word of exorcism (but not sourcing either). And that's all we have for healing the sick, but Jesus made many other healings than exorcisms.
"Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ": Wallace points out that "krst" is not a title but means "burial" (not "anointed" ruler). Probably a false etymology.
"Horus walking the water = Jesus walking the water": No source given. Wallace denies any such passage.
"Horus the raiser of the dead = Jesus the raiser of the dead"; "Horus the raiser up of Asar = Jesus the raiser up of Lazarus": Exact same as previous. Asar is Osiris, who was raised by Isis, not Horus.
The appendix does not refer to "ministering" or "traveling", which are too generic to be taken as marks alone unless they were tied to a larger narrative. There is no reference to "betraying" by Typhon (a Greek serpentine giant overlaid onto Egyptian Set, but not noted for betrayal).
Massey's graphic on page 757 is also used in the video, taken from the temple of Luxor. It's labeled "The Annunciation, Conception, Birth, and Adoration of the Child". This appears to be the source for alleged annunciation by Taht (Thoth) and impregnation by Kneph (Nef). However, this is a known artifact constructed by Amenhotep III to depict a divine birth ca. 1400 for himself. In this legend his mother is not stated to be a virgin, she is not impregnated by a spirit but by Amun taking the form of Amenhotep's father Thutmose IV, his birth was (apparently) in a palace rather than a stable, and Massey arbitrarily selects three men out of a large group of attendants and designates them kings. So there is no special relationship of any of these events to the story of Christ. It is clear that the worship of Amenhotep and the special status of his mother followed the ordinary track of incarnation narratives already known (and anticipated in Genesis 6), but the various new turns taken in narrating the birth of Jesus are completely extraordinary.
It should suffice that a large collection of titles of Dionysius does not include "King of Kings", "Only-Begotten", or "Alpha and Omega"; that him being a traveler, minister, or miracle workers is insignificant; and that, as god of wine, there are reports of him producing wine (most notably Pausanias 6.26.2 as to Elis and Andros, which does not mention provenance from water and is 2nd century AD; also Diodoros, Pliny, Plutarch, who all wrote later than Jesus's life).
TLDR: Zeitgeist is resurrecting the failed methods and rejected interpretations of Gerald Massey with little new content in an attempt to create another stunning-looking Lincoln-Kennedy parallel that fails fact checks just as badly. Sargon's late legend postdates conservative dating of Moses, Dionysius's turning water to wine comes from several sources all after Jesus, and all the notable parallels with Horus (apart from astronomy-sourced) arise from one appendix and one illustration of Massey that are discredited for their wild imagination, free association of unrelated ideas, and horrendous sourcing practice. Disappointing that these always go the same way. One factor from Massey that can be taken appropriately in its context is Amenhotep III writing his own divine birth narrative in the 14th century BC, which is part of the flow of hero narratives that already existed among monotheists and polytheists alike but that does not anticipate any special detail of Jesus's birth.