I have watched the movie Zeitgeist where Christianity has been treated as a mere astrological thing, Jesus was also compared to the other gods and found out some profound similarities. Is Jesus the Sun? To support this idea, a documentation made by National Geographic about Ancient Egypt also revealed the incontrovertible pattern of Christianity and their ancient traditions.

  • 2
    The Zeitgeist movie is basically nonsense. See this question on the Skeptics site.
    – curiousdannii
    Jun 4 '14 at 3:39
  • 4
    @stack It will be helpful if you actually included examples of these "profound similarities" and "incontrovertible patterns." Without them, it's difficult to respond. However, you did come to the right site to ask the question.
    – Steve
    Jun 4 '14 at 3:39
  • 5
    No, you're getting downvotes because your question shows no research effort. Lots of people on this site don't believe in God, and even more believe very 'heretical' things (depending on who you ask). This question isn't offlimits, it's just bad.
    – curiousdannii
    Jun 4 '14 at 4:49
  • 4
    You have miss diagnosed the issue with votes on this question. There is no rule that askers have to assume belief and there are plenty of highly upvoted questions from athiests (example). I believe the issue here has more to do with the lack of research and clarity on what you are actually asking (what do you expect to learn about Chrisianity out of this?
    – Caleb
    Jun 4 '14 at 5:45
  • 4
    I haven't seen the film, but the question appears to refer to the Jesus-is-Osiris idea which Acharya S describes. However, the question needs to be self-contained and include all the information necessary to answer it: we should not need to see the film, find the National Geographic article or read Acharya S's blog. Jun 4 '14 at 6:21

I'll quote the perfunctory Chestertionian reply to the all religions are the same and Christianity is a religion therefore its the same argument.

I take a third case; the strangest of all, because it involves the one real objection to the faith. The one real objection to the Christian religion is simply that it is one religion. The world is a big place, full of very different kinds of people. Christianity (it may reasonably be said) is one thing confined to one kind of people; it began in Palestine, it has practically stopped with Europe. I was duly impressed with this argument in my youth, and I was much drawn towards the doctrine often preached in Ethical Societies—I mean the doctrine that there is one great unconscious church of all humanity founded on the omnipresence of the human conscience. Creeds, it was said, divided men; but at least morals united them. The soul might seek the strangest and most remote lands and ages and still find essential ethical common sense. It might find Confucius under Eastern trees, and he would be writing "Thou shalt not steal." It might decipher the darkest hieroglyphic on the most primeval desert, and the meaning when deciphered would be "Little boys should tell the truth." I believed this doctrine of the brotherhood of all men in the possession of a moral sense, and I believe it still—with other things. And I was thoroughly annoyed with Christianity for suggesting (as I supposed) that whole ages and empires of men had utterly escaped this light of justice and reason. But then I found an astonishing thing. I found that the very people who said that mankind was one church from Plato to Emerson were the very people who said that morality had changed altogether, and that what was right in one age was wrong in another. If I asked, say, for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideals. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstitions of savages. I found it was their daily taunt against Christianity that it was the light of one people and had left all others to die in the dark. But I also found that it was their special boast for themselves that science and progress were the discovery of one people, and that all other peoples had died in the dark. Their chief insult to Christianity was actually their chief compliment to themselves, and there seemed to be a strange unfairness about all their relative insistence on the two things. When considering some pagan or agnostic, we were to remember that all men had one religion; when considering some mystic or spiritualist, we were only to consider what absurd religions some men had. We could trust the ethics of Epictetus, because ethics had never changed. We must not trust the ethics of Bossuet, because ethics had changed. They changed in two hundred years, but not in two thousand

GK Chesterton. Orthodoxy

Basically, you have two things. Christianity and everything else. Christianity has altars and priests and sacrifices and oils and water and blood and bread and wine and incense. Ancient Egypt has all these same symbols and practices. That doesn't make us the same, it might make us both human, it might even be that there is something natural on the way most of humanity communicates with the divine.

But, Christianity differs in ethics from ancient Egypt and you can see this in the way that Europe ended the Servile State in the middle ages and re-invented it after the reformation. Egypt tends toward slavery, Christianity tends toward freedom. When you look at sacrifice, in pagan religions, the religious authority sacrificed the innocent. In Christianity, the greatest good is to sacrifice yourself.

  • 1
    Excellent, relevant Chesterton quote. He is essentially summarizing the fact that it is as much part of natural law to give sacrifice to a higher being as it understand that murder is wrong or marriage is monogamous. So, yes, "there is something natural on the way most of humanity communicates with the divine." Even those who performed human sacrifices, although very misguided, were still following natural law in some respect.
    – Geremia
    Jan 27 '16 at 18:59

Because the atheist moderns who make up the beliefs of ancient Egypt make them up to sound that way. Honestly, have you ever heard of an ancient Egyptian analogue to the Bible? Can you buy it in the local bookstore? Then how do you know what they believed? Most of their beliefs weren't even written down (just like the Druids) but were passed on orally by the priests to new priests. And as for what was written down, it was only written in cryptic symbols. I'm not referring to hieroglyphics, I'm referring the fact that they didn't write plain manuals of the religious beliefs on the wall. They didn't write creeds and catechisms, like Christian denominations. There are no ancient Egyptian statements of faith. All that we know about ancient Egyptian religion is guesswork based on very terse and cryptic phrases, combined with looking at objects and pretty pictures. And those who interpret all this for us are atheists with an axe to grind against Christianity. Think about it.

Edit: There is a work by Manetho called Aegyptiaca, a history of Egypt which includes some details of their religion, which I remembered after posting this. He was an Egyptian priest who wrote in the 3rd century BCE. This work is preserved in Greek, and can be found in Loeb Classical Library series. But I doubt you will find a bunch of parallels to Christianity in there. My point above is not that there are no written documents from the ancient world about ancient Egyptian religion, but that there aren't really any that parallel Christianity. The stuff alleging parallels is made to order.

  • What about the Book of the Dead?
    – curiousdannii
    Jun 4 '14 at 3:44
  • @curiousdannii, It has no parallels to Christianity. Gnosticism maybe, with the notion of ascending through the various heavens giving manifold magical passwords to various subdeities. That, and as I said, its cryptic. And as Wikipedia says, "There was no single or canonical Book of the Dead." Jun 4 '14 at 3:52
  • Well, history is a tough thing to discover, delving deeper will only lead to thousands of more questions. And hey, what about the Epic of Gilgamesh, it matches the great flood during the time of Noah.
    – stack
    Jun 4 '14 at 4:37
  • 3
    David, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that all Egyptologists are atheist moderns making up Egyptian beliefs; I suspect there are respected Egyptologists who are practicing Christians. Further, the fact that we've not discovered manuals, creeds, or catechisms from the ancient Egyptians is not necessarily conclusive evidence that none were ever written. And while conjecture certainly plays a role in the scientific method applied by Egyptologists, the use of the term "guesswork" has negative connotations with which I'm uncomfortable in this instance.
    – brasshat
    Jun 4 '14 at 5:09
  • @stack, Gilgamesh is not Egyptian but Summerian. Jun 6 '14 at 2:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.