A good deal of this is plausible or even well known, but the argument is overdone and smells of propaganda. It would be a long job to check all the statements in this video, but at any rate: Putting the Southern Cross (invisible in the north temperate zone) into a theory of Christianity is absurd. It may be that the fish symbol is a mythological echo, but it might at least be mentioned that the official explanation is that the Greek word for fish was taken by the early Christians as an acronym. Finally, there is no warrant in the Gospels for saying that the Magi were kings or that there were three of them; that is recent folklore.
Um…well, perhaps, but Christianity as generally preached and explained sets rather an extreme standard of implausible propaganda. This what's presented in the video seems a great deal more plausible than the standard bulk wrap handwaving, fairytales, and ghost stories about immaculate conception, resurrection, loaves and fishes, et cetera ad nauseam, all of which more than countervail any "absurdity" of putting the Southern Cross into a theory of Christianity.
I agree that Christian propaganda is on the whole much worse, but I also think that that is a pretty miserable standard to measure skeptical propaganda against.
Surely, which is why "No, because that constellation isn't in this part of the sky" fails to be a dealbreaker for me with regard to the ideas in the film. It would sail well past double-standardsburgh and be asymmetrical to a degree that would make Möbius smile if any questionably-dotted "I" or partially-crossed "T" were sufficient grounds for doubting a reality-based theory of the origin of a myth.
Not to mention Chapter II of Winwood Reade's _Martyrdom of Man_ (villa_la_miranda@mercuryin.es --- sorry, I can't figure out how to make this into a link).
Click to view
Comments 14
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism
http://archive.org/details/mosesandmonothei032233mbp
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment