I question everything, including what you have to say. And I doubt you would get along with me, because I think you are a person with an agenda.

Oh, I get along, and so far you're getting along. I have only one agenda, the One who laid hold on me, I am his love-slave and can do no other than serve him, I'm very predictable that way.

Are you referring here to Oséh, meaning the one who acts as in Freemasonry?

No, clearly the Masons stole that word from the Hebrew, Oseh doer, Asah to do or make. When Jesus said "It is finished" he was quoting the last verse of Psalm 22 (as he had quoted the first verse), "He has done it", which is "Asah" in Hebrew. Not my fault if the Masons culturally appropriated it from the correct Hebrew meaning you describe.

Maybe it's nothing wrong with the Bible and Paul belongs there, although there is little doubt in my mind he was an agent of Rome, not only a citizen, and doing the work the Pharisees tasked him to do. Maybe everything is wrong with the Bible starting with Genesis where in the first two chapters we find two distinct and contradictory stories of creation.

Good. I've tested the first theory and haven't found problems with it. I've tested the second theory and found that it relies on faulty assumptions and people inventing perceived contradictions from extreme cultural distance after thousands of years of regular readers not seeing anything contradictory. Nobody treats any other ancient book that way, as if the whole book is garbage after thousands of years of preservation because a 19th-century German doesn't understand the first two pages in their context.

And continuing with the Ethiopian Bible which has 81 books, compared to 66 books for Protestants, 73 for Catholics. And hundreds of manuscripts, including Gospels, and religious writings, were considered merely Apocrypha, not part of the accepted canon of Scriptures.

Correct. Note that this is not about shutting anything out, this is about what books rose to the level of canon over hundreds of years of testing by covenant people. All three agree on the same 66 books (and the Jews agree on the Hebrew books), so it's the same covenant tradition of the same books being recognized, because they all passed the same tests and none of the others came anywhere close. The extra books were always regarded, by each group including Protestants, as attaining to a secondary level of utility (deuterocanon), not meeting the marks of the protocanon but still retaining broad utility. Yes, the hundreds of other books could be counted as close to the deuterocanon, and it's a disappointment the church doesn't share more about them (let me plug Odes of Solomon again). The modern idea that the fourth century made a random list and censored everything else is totally false; rather, each book, when it was written, was preserved by the covenant people as a candidate and, after the centuries of testing, rose in esteem until it was accepted as inspired. It's a pretty well-regulated process, actually.

I assume you mean exclude him as a disciple of Christ.

Well, I meant exclude his writings as inspired. See, you're free to select any writing as inspired, or reject them all, but I do ask people to make decisions and be consistent. If you were to imply that the words of Yeshu only appear in Thomas, well, you can say that straight out and we can work with it. But if you act as if the gospels have some historical value, those (a) give lots more words of Yeshu, (b) indicate that he believed every letter and serif of the Hebrew Scriptures, (c) indicate something extraordinary and unparalleled happened among Yeshu and his disciples. The idea that none of the Greek Scriptures were written by people who knew Yeshu is very recent and actually falls apart upon a little inspection (IMHO), but if you'd like to put forward standards for judging historical documents we can easily work those details out. But when you present as a person who feels free to quote Scriptures but who doubts Paul, I state my positions from Scripture without Paul. If you'd like the truth derived only from Thomas, it's a slower route but it might be doable. I hold back from overwhelming you with links unless I'm confident you'd enjoy them.

Despite considerable research we know surprisingly little about the historical Yeshu (Jesus).

Whaddaya mean we, kemo sabe?

Everything else like virgin birth, miracles, walking on water, resurrection, including Peter being a disciple, comes from texts written decades later by people who never met Yeshu.

Actually, the first evidence we have, as many scholars are now recognizing, is that 1 Cor. 15:3-4 quotes an oral tradition that Paul formally "received" from Peter and James and that had to have been circulating 2-5 years after the crucifixion, and it indicates the belief in the supernatural nature of the death had already begun entrenching itself. Luke is often regarded as the best historian of the era, given his accuracy, and he describes (as if written for a court review, which it probably was) how a demoralized group suddenly became accepted leaders of a new Jewish movement that rapidly spread worldwide, with regular reference to miracles; these statements were written when contemporaries were alive to dispute them, and often challenge them to do so. So by ordinary historical standards, something extraordinary caused a massive new movement that taught the supernatural from its origin (a supernatural that, incidentally, the surrounding Jewish culture universally taught as well). But let me know what core you want to start from and we can go from there. I doubt you'd want to propose both that none of the NT was written by people whose names are on it and that Thomas nevertheless wrote Thomas, that would be a bit of special pleading.

So I appreciate very much the consideration. But ultimately it comes down to Truth. Truth apprehended me and enslaves me, and so I ask people if they are committed to pursue Truth at all costs, or if there is some reason one couldn't commit that. If you question everything for the sake of establishing Truth, you're making that commitment and you'll come to find what of the Scriptures is true. It sounds like you've come across many conflicting sources (churchianity, gnostics, skeptics, Mormons, Masons) and so you are cautious about making truth commitments. Except Thomas sounds good to you (it's so ambiguous and twistable, it serves that purpose for many). But I find you only need that one commitment, Truth, and by the time you find yourself making it you realize it was already made for you. From then on it's easy to receive more truths every moment.

u/Thisisnotanexit, since he's blocking me, you should tell him that you or me talking about him is not engaging him or an invitation to engage, let alone harassing him, or trying to provoke him or to publicly humiliate him or to manipulate his behavior, or engaging in DARVO tactics, or slandering him, or targeting him to try and cause him distress, or playing the victim (claiming victim), or delighting to do the above, or continuing to target him for harassment, or stalking him.

Jesus taught the golden rule, but Seeker has not yet learned how to externalize himself so as to recognize the sameness of action done to him or done to another. For him to reserve the right to talk about others while disallowing the right for others to talk about him is the basic disconnect that he will someday abandon. You just don't go on the public internet and do that. If he keeps up he is likely to get trolled by much worse folks than you and me as it gets more obvious to everyone else what an easy target there is here. (Yes, I'm prepared for him to misread that statement of encouragement for him to watch his Way as if I'm saying something other than that.)

Since you're talking about what I'd like, I'd like for you to be absolutely committed to The Way. The person who is absolutely committed deals with his lapses on others' terms instead of trying to cover them up on his own terms. When you are absolutely committed, we won't have trouble communicating.

u/Paleo, in re u/SeekerOfTheWay pinging you, his admitted prior account wrote, "It's two-ways free range. Swamp .... can do what he wants in regards to me, say anything on here to me or about me, and I can respond however I want and vice versa", 7:24:08 PM CST 2025-12-26.

I continue to "reserve such rights as (1) to comment at a distance in response to contributions that involve me, (2) to interact with any comments in forums where both the commenter and myself are contributors with equal rights, (3) to invite others to interact with other accounts as fitting, and (4) to continue in my prayers for account holders here that they grow in absolute dedication to The Way." Obviously, while an offered agreement on voluntary interaction ban remains unconfirmed, I also retain such rights as commenting at a distance on other contributions.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts! By pinging Paleo you're expressing your desire again for a third party to step in between us, a desire which I've pointed out can be resolved instantly by your simply saying "Agreed" to this draft proposal on voluntary interaction ban. The fact that you don't, so far, suggests that you're not comfortable with your own terms and so the best approach for that is your continuing to define those terms in ways that I or a third party can affirm.

You logically have two options. Bilateral: We agree on terms (which you can currently do with as little as a single word). Unilateral: We continue each doing whatever we believe right (which is the default and which was the note on which the Soul account left matters):

It's two-ways free range. Swamp .... can do what he wants in regards to me, say anything on here to me or about me, and I can respond however I want and vice versa.

You don't have the option of remaining logical while you accuse me of continuously harassing and stalking you and while also you refuse agreement by which all the actions you categorize as harassing and stalking would end. You either act like a person who cares that they end, or you act like a person who doesn't care that they end, but not both and remain logical.

If you agree on voluntary interaction ban, then I can leave you to consider the next trap (your playing the victim card) in silence, rather than to encourage you to rise above it. If you don't agree, then status quo continues.

Add: I was just reading Teresa's Interior Castle last night just as you were today, so we are on the same wavelength and it would be nice to talk about. It would be a pity for this opportunity for better understanding to be bypassed.

Continuing my regular reporting to c/Conspiracies, OP made a new statement about Christians being "welcome" which I initially read as welcoming me to operate within the rules. However, a brief exchange by modmail indicates this is not the intent, and that there's a disconnect between the idea that Christians are (all) welcome and the continuing idea that Christians can be permabanned at mod discretion without recourse. I see these as essentially contradictory, but Seeker is not aware of how the perception of contradiction hurts his cause.

On the ban modmail "You can no longer post in TheNarrowWay." I wrote: "Thank you for your new rules comment. Any chance you can unban me from c/TheNarrowWay, so that I can seek to ask supportive questions about The Way and Original Christianity, please?"

Seeker wrote from his own account "TheNarrowWay Ban Appeal Inquiry": "I didn't make any new rules comment(s). Ban remains as is. Appeal denied. No further or future appeals please." (Incidentally, Seeker, if you wish to keep the reply as coming from the same modmail account instead of from your personal account, just reply from the individual message page in the modmail tool.)

So it appears that I, and any others who have been banned by this account, will remain so even as Christians are "welcome".

TLDR: How long can Seeker practice all the extremist, absolutist, censorian, manipulative control tropes while pretending also that he is fighting them? When will he realize what everyone else does, that he is being just as abusive as those who have abused him, or more so, and that he has need of external assistance for reconciliation, not just feeling good about Self, but also having right relations with Other, as determined by Other and not just by Self? Omphaloskeptics become ouroboroi.

I have a little elasticity. I get along with people who are very straitlaced about those things but I also get along with people who question them. As a great advocate of the primitive Christianity of James, which was more closely connected with the Essenes than people realize because Essene is from Oseh, James's word for being a Doer, I see bridges between what the creeds are attempting to convey and the concerns of antitrinitarians and upholders of original Christianity. Between James and the formal creeds we have many steps, not only Paul, then gnostic influence, then Roman hegemony, then the very significant Lapsi controversy of 251, and finally the Constantinian revisions, so it's essential to distinguish the problems at each step when we talk about the creeds.

If we were to say all doctrine must be taken from the portion of the Bible excluding Pauline Christianity, I'd be very happy to agree, and aspects of your perceived "Christian core" are naturally a bit removed from that source. First, the connection of God's nature to the words "trinity", "three", and "person" is tenuous and not very Biblical. "Dying for sins" has in America gone quite far removed from the Mosaic teaching of animals dying for sins, or from Peter's view "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18); would you accept Peter on this or are we to exclude him too? "Second coming" and "final judgment" are also poor and unbiblical summary phrases; "coming again" is Johannine (14) but doesn't mean what people think, "final judgment" is in the NLT but not the Greek, and in my experience Christians are least united about eschatology, which your core framing has several elements of. In particular Christians often fail to realize that "heaven" and "hell" are not the names of the final states, which are more rightly called new heaven-earth and fire lake.

So what I actually believe is taken from the Bible alone (which is holistic enough to permit the removal of all Pauline books and Hebrews): if you wish to excise anything else, feel free and I will compensate. (1) We are to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). (2) Father and Son bear witness (John 8:18). (3) Spirit bears record (1 John 5:7a, 8b; excluding the disputed portion that might have been written by Tertullian). (4) A matter is established by three witnesses (Deut. 19:15; but don't infer anything the text doesn't actually state). (5) Christ suffered for sins and was put to death (1 Peter 3:18). (6) Jesus will come in like manner as the apostles saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:11). (7) The dead will be judged every man according to their works (Rev. 20:12-13). (8) Jesus was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead (Acts 10:42). (9) The Son of Man will separate all nations as sheep from goats (Matt. 25:32). (10) The goats shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (Matt. 25:46).

Ebionites and Essenes revered all these Scriptures if I'm not mistaken. Is there a problem with any of them?

(Add: I should've expressed concern also about your including Mormons (the COJCOLDS) as a denomination or as Christian, because neither Christendom nor Mormons include the other, and they don't agree on this core. Instead of a corporate trinity in unity they have a tritheist language of "three personages"; instead of dying for sin they have modeling all the godhood that we are to "become"; instead of heaven and hell they have three destinies, "celestial, telestial, and terrestrial", which don't overlay heaven and hell. But that's tangential.)

You'd be surprised at how subtly documents like Fiducia supplicans skirms heresy without falling into it. Hence preserving the Pope (and the Church) from overall fakeness and gayness ;)

What I've been trying to tell people.

All the same, it was literally produced by the Spanish Inquisition (now called the DDF), and Hippie Frank (whom I took to calling "Mario the Slummer") expressed cautious hope that things like this would improve the Inquisition's overall optics. So the awareness of others' perception is still behind the times. Vigano all the way, for me.

Jesus wrote to seven churches in 96 AD and every time he distinguished those who were doing real "church" (kyriakon, Lord's work) from the infiltrators who were doing works of satan (seven different schemes named).

What would you say the "church" should be, what does Jesus want us to be doing?

I embrace the fact that satanists are evil? What? I'm pretty good about exposing satanists here pretty consistently. You seem to refer to the fact that I don't think everyone accused of being a satanist is a satanist (we need some consistent methods on that to prevent infighting).

I evangelize everyone and I have the power to break people's blood contracts with satan (and I do). So I don't write people off quickly as unsaveable, although there are tests by which I would. You use collectivism and antichrist cultism (Hitler being your professed messiah) to abrogate the white man's responsibility to make good judgment.

I asked God about this and the answer I got is that the covenant people are always getting better and the world people are always getting worse (up to a point we haven't reached yet). The tools that the righteous have for dealing with the problem and protecting themselves are ever more sufficient for the day. The blessed trajectory will outlast the Goddamned one.

We have a few sedes here.

You may have noticed that I picked up a few free namespaces here of all kinds to ensure nobody else got them. I was first graciously given an assistance role at c/Christianity, and then created c/catholic (both of those are still going strong). Nobody posts at c/Satanism, but my general namespace strategy seems well-founded in spite of that. I also have c/FlatEarth and you are free to post and research anything there (you can even crosspost to c/Conspiracies but many of its users feel glutted on that topic); I love interacting positively with theories about state control of space data and Antarctic data.

Welcome to c/Conspiracies! You just replied to an Orthodox Christian. I wonder what you think the True Church is, maybe you agree with him. Not that I need to argue with you, but as a Protestant I try to understand all sides.

So I don't see the problem. Here I am seeking the words of Yeshu, and I have them in print in many approved and disapproved sources, and also in my heart, and I know how to reconcile them, and they are life, and I'm enjoying the seeking and finding. What we've been discussing is mostly historical points, where I'm busy focusing on what happened (because Yeshu doesn't divorce me from reality), and my reading is that you're focusing on overall messages and narratives based on "understanding Yeshu" in some way that very few do. Now fiction has power to help us understand up to a point, but truth has power too, and unadmitted fiction (deception) has no power because it loses more power overall than it gains. So whether you want your narratives to be admitted fictions or truths, I'm okay with that. But then there shouldn't be any conflict between seeking Yeshu and my making statements like "Analysis of Grosser reveals 12 modern nations Jews were expelled from as well as regions of several others".

So I appreciate your sharing, and I seek to integrate what you've said. And yet obviously Yeshu better integrated for himself all the keys he shared with others than others did, so there's a sense in which he's always beyond us, his words are always capable of more meaning than we've realized. Where's the dispute then, if any?

So cutting to the chase .... who do you trust?

What gate would you like me not to keep? AFAIK I only have one gate, and it's kept for me by Another.

The real Catholics here account freely for their own souls, you don't, so you may not be a real Catholic.

The main point is that a Catholic saw Luther in hell. And my main point is it's not magisterium. You do know how your own Church works, don't you, or do you just trust that whatever opinions you come to when you rant on the net are just fine because your priest has the job of telling you otherwise? You do know that your Church is interested in saving souls from hell, and you're doing an abysmal job of that in this discussion, right?

Luther's whole point in 1517 was that (as a raving papist) he believed the Pope had better be prepared to answer sharp questions from the laity, and the popes don't seem to have taken that fully into account yet.

Only heretics care about what churchmen say

I don't understand. You don't care about what churchmen say?

Your link says that in 1707 Francis Jerome raised a prostitute from the dead for a few seconds so she could testify that she had gone to hell, along with a vision of Maria Micheli in 1887 where she saw Luther suffering in hell (among other things). I understand the church treats these as pious opinions rather than as magisterium, namely that you are free to believe or not to believe them. I asked about magisterium.

I'm really appreciative that you took the time to write this theory of emanations, and to affirm your oneness with Bartholomew. Given your depth of study, I hope you don't mind my asking questions to see where such realization takes us.

I'm interested in knowing, is anyone else on earth right now "one from which the name of the disciple of Yeshua known as Bartholomew was derived from"? Obviously if there's only one we should pay great attention to the phenomenon, and if there's more than one we should aspire to match the phenomenon, so I'd like to know which.

stop embracing division and start embracing unity

Excellent!

We could live in peace and harmony, even in our differences if only we would give up the conflict and embrace living in peace and harmony, rejecting those who say it's not possible; those who seek to keep us divided and want us divided.

Great; how, without conflict or division, does one distance from and create boundaries against and reject those who say peace is impossible? Healthy boundaries without division, I'll need to think about what that could mean.

To succeed in something and give birth to life, wholeness, and harmony we must first believe such a state is possible and direct our entire Body, Mind, and Soul towards achieving such a state, never looking back and embracing the old ways that bring death and division.

Those who claim to believe in God and promote the concept of the importance of having faith, saying that with God all things are possible will often say that being perfect is impossible for people to achieve and thus display their lack of faith in the basic implications of the common beliefs they hold on to, even though their sacred text calls them to such a state.

God doesn't dwell in man's reason that man builds up claiming that it's God's truth and that salvation is found through their institutions by believing this or that thing, or by having faith in this or that event.

Affirmed!

Jesus is an allegorical symbolic portrayal of what we are to become ourselves

So, does that mean that this "Christ" we are to become was also modeled uniquely by the paradigm of whatever living person contributed the most to getting the Jesus narrative transmitted, whether that person was Yeshua or Bartholomew or someone else?

It is so that one stuck in a negative cycle that leads to death will see death as life, and view life as death being convinced they see the truth

Does that mean that if a person claims that the spectrum measures only units of death and that there are no units of life, this is less true and life-affirming than the one who claims units of life and no units of death, such that there's a qualitative difference that can be agreed on regardless of whether one values life (connection to Source) or values death (disconnection from Source)?

a true non-existent type of annihilation cannot happen.

Insightful.

There exists, realities which we are unable to know

Then how do you know to say that, unless you mean we are unable to know perfectly what we can know partially?

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers.

Wouldn't we conclude then that whatever is capable of proving all truths must not be algorithmically listable (i.e. it must be infinite), a logos that transcends systematic logic? It seems to me the logos must transcend both logic and illogic (though there is a difference) for it to be monality.

Looking forward to your continued thoughts.

I don't believe the Roman Church actually teaches in the magisterium that Luther is in hell. It's not as if you go to hell for something you changed before they called you on it and that you didn't hold for 30 years afterward. That wasn't true of any heretic I know. So I believe you're going beyond the magisterium just to make yourself feel better about anathematizing me.

But guess what! If your priest told you you don't need to repent for obscenity and personal attack, according to your system you don't have to trouble your conscience about it! According to what I said, you might possibly escape as innocent with the actual penalty falling on your priest instead, but all the same it's better to lay out your conscience early and be more certain.

Luther did have the fortitude to fight for what Jesus gave us, which is why he published theses about indulgences that (the Counterreformation later admitted) were not being operated in accord with what Jesus gave us.

Leo then relied on counsel that badly summarized Luther's old teachings and excommunicated him even though hearings were inconclusive. Luther continued fighting for the church even after it kicked him out.

Now some Catholics would say Luther was wrong to pursue conscience when it told him church practices were wrong: instead he should have suppressed the internal voice and refused to trust his own eyes and ears, doing nothing but repeating what he believed to be contradictions like a good nonplayer character. I do understand the reason for this preference, and I think that God will preserve a great many people who practice it in spite of themselves. But there comes a time when authority tells you something wrong and you know 100% that you must resist it even if it goes all the way to the top (at least on earth). The centuries of infallibility debate (which continue) demonstrate that the issue of conscience isn't yet settled. I know the answer, but the Catholics suppress where the answer appears in the magisterium because they believe there is a dichotomy between unity and conscience (there isn't). Until Catholics wake up (very literally) and recognize how the Spirit speaks through conscience and always has, they will have the risk of running aground.

TLDR: If you skipped all that, again I ask you to bring your obscenity-laced tirades to your confessor.

Jesus was crucified in his 36th year. The legend of 33 arises from there being a 3-year ministry and Luke's statement "about 30", but when Luke says "about" he means "about" every time. His actual age can be validated by history and particularly recorded eclipses.

He was dead about 36 hours or so before his tomb was found empty, but in those days the expression for that was both "after three days" (not literal in English) and "on the third day" (still literal in English). They understood each other when they called 36 hours three days, but we don't, so we came up with alternate arguments to confuse things.

If world civilizations had astrotheological keystones, then they all pointed to how to recognize divinity when it manifests. However, of all the candidates described here, only one had biography written by eyewitnesses in his generation. With the evidence of archaeology and even hostile witnesses, we can be confident that something unique happened. On the principle "It takes a Jesus to invent a Jesus", the number of incongruities and novelties in the 30s AD are so unprecedented that even if some were false the person who invented them had a better narrative than any other ever invented before or since. So they are worthy of inspection even by skeptics; but the more I look the more truth I find.

I've posted a lot on this, so you can search "Chronology" at c/Christianity for many details, or I'll be happy to help with specifics based on your interest.

Not a reliable source, Sepehr is apologetic toward secret societies.

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.

Allow me also to say I appreciate your other postings (and your use of these transcripts). In particular my review of the Ken Ham and Eric Hovind clips indicates that they are (contrary to my other experience with them) being disappointingly presuppositional in a way that we would hope nobody pursues.

There is always a single core presupposition and it is either nihilism or truth: every other form of presupposition or denial thereof is isomorphic to, and resolves to, one of those two options (though the two options can be broken down into many good and bad subcategories). But among people who agree on nihilism, or among people who agree on truth, everything should then be evaluated by evidence. I point people to the facts that the universe testifies first of its uniquenesses and transcendence, then of its power to include more specific testimonies within it, then of our use of facts and logic to select among those testimonies and tentatively, gradually uphold those that explain material the best. This is what leads me to the belief the Bible is at least as trustworthy as other histories, and when I build on the consequences of that belief I eventually get to sufficient inerrancy: I don't start with inerrancy when my audience has doubt about it, and I don't recommend that to anyone.

At the same time, Paul of Paulogia makes at least one mistake: he regards Euclidean parallels as a definition rather than an axiom. Euclid showed, and mathematicians still emphasize, that a small set of axioms is necessary to any system of truth, or else nothing can be proven true. The parallel axiom is that, if two lines have internal adjacent transversal angles under 180 degrees, then they intersect. (Or, if they don't intersect, then the angles are 180 degrees.) His placement of this axiom suggested he realized that it would be uncertain if it were not taken as an axiom. In the 19th century, mathematicians finally asked what geometry would be if the axiom were false instead of true, and they discovered a distinct, but useful, geometry, known as non-Euclidean and hyperbolic; it has some isomorphisms with Euclidean geometry but different definitions and often different results. The current mathematical consensus is that any number of axiom sets can be selected that each have their unique universe of provable statements, but each axiom set is an incomplete model of reality in which the actual axiom is that statements either accord with reality (is true) or do not. Because Paul rightly points out that definitions don't relate to presupposition, he never gets around to his own presuppositions (such as his stated belief that he is fair); the pursuit of fairness is ultimately isomorphic to the presupposition that truth exists.

I hope this helps. Since you seem to be able to see my comments, I refer back to the question: "Is it objectively true (without dependence on subjective framing) that no statements are objectively true, or is it objectively true that one or more statements are in fact objectively true?" I would think this would be an easy question to answer, given your exposure of presuppositionalism that proposes complex axiomatic schemes rather than one simple axiom of truth existing.