You should watch the rest, the astrology bit is interesting. I know it's not going to matter to you, but it's interesting. I don't think it's any kind of proof that Jesus is totally mythological, but certainly it shows clear parallels with astrological phenomena. I find it hard to believe that what we have in the gospels is some kind of pure, clean record of what actually happened. Well actually I don't remotely believe it.Maaaaaaaarten said:The entire video is full of inaccuracies, not just the bit about Horus. If you know that the Horus parallels are very fanciful, you shouldn't believe the other stuff that's being said here, unless you've properly researched it yourself and found better sources confirming it. The internet is full of these types of quasi-conspiracy videos about Jesus actually being completely mythological and just another incarnation of some common mythological pattern, but this type of theory isn't taken serious by actual academic historians and theologians at all, to my knowledge. The comparative mythology stuff and the idea that Jesus is a completely mythological figure with (almost) no base in history has all been proposed by actual historians/biblical scholars in the 19th century and it had some adherence until the beginning of the 20th century, but nowadays it's been thoroughly tested and the hypothesis is found to be contrary to evidence. The 'Christ myth theory' is considered fringe thing nowadays in academia. (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory)red_flanders said:
Just a random point about the astrology; the video bases a lot on Jesus being born on 25th of December, but the Bible doesn't suggest Jesus was born on the 25th of December at all. I think the first mention of Jesus being born on that date is like in the 3rd century or something.
To be honest, I didn't really bother to watch the rest of the video after the cliche inaccurate comparative mythology and the apparent ignorance about where the 25th of December date comes from.
No one knows when Jesus was born. There are various theories with scant evidence one way or another. As you well know the original books were written decades after his death, if not over a century in some cases. This is literally a couple of generations at least of oral history later. Personally I'm not going to run my life on the verbatim of books written this way in the bronze age after the story had been handed down hundreds if not thousands of times.
I wish religious folks were as critical of evidence of what's in the sacred texts as they are of what's on the internet. We'd all be a lot better off.