In fact, the literary similarities between Horus and Jesus are staggering.

As the above statement is said, a long list of supposed parallels roll across the screen that apparently were taken from the writings of the nineteenth century pseudoscholar Gerald Massey. Some we have already dealt with in prior posts, some are made up completely, and some are insignificant. For example, there is a parallel that has Jesus and an Egyptian figure both being teachers. I have news for you: lots of religions have teachers; it goes with the territory. While one may call this a parallel, it is hardly one worthy of note. At one point, the list even has a supposed Trinity of Osiris, Horus, and Ra. While Osiris and Horus are father and son, they are not father and son of the same essence and each merely unites in configuration with Ra, the eseence of the sun, at different times. The relationship between Osiris, Horus, and Ra is unique within the specific context of Egyptian thought and has nothing to do with the development of the Trinity in Christianity or the Trimurti in Hinduism. Each arose out of concepts specific to their own religious context.

What one finds in the remainder of the list is similar misconceptions, strained attempts at parallels, and ideas made up in Massey’s rather confused understanding of both Egypt and Christianity. It merely demonstrates the pitfalls of valuing outdated pseudoscholars over contemporary actual scholars.

Furthermore, the character of Jesus, a literary and astrological hybrid, is most explicitly a plagiarization of the Egyptian Sun-god Horus. For example, inscribed about 3500 years, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt are images of the enunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth, and the adoration of Horus. The images begin with Thaw announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration. This is exactly the story of Jesus’ immaculate conception.

Before we even begin the analysis of the claims concerning Horus, please note the term “immaculate conception” being used in terms of Jesus. In reality, the term “immaculate conception” is a Catholic belief referring to the conception of Mary without the stain of original sin – the term for the conception of Jesus is the Incarnation. This was changed in later versions of the film to “miracle conception” but this blunder does demonstrate the filmmaker Peter Joseph could hardly be considered knowledgable on the topic of Christianity.

Now let us turn to the larger topic of whether the claims of a parallel on the walls of Luxor Temple are legitimate. The first problem is that all the film presents are a series of pictures written on the wall without ever telling us if the pictures have a context, if the context matches that of the Nativity stories in the Gospels, if the picutres shown are the only pictures, and if there is a textual description on the walls of Luxor that would allow us to see what the intended message entails.

When we look at the pictures, the matches described in the Nativity story, while not necessarily ruled out, are not explicitly depicted at all. The fact is that one could read any number of possibilities into them and we must turn to the context to determine the actual situation. It turns out this is the depiction of the birth of Pharaoah Amenhetop III and he, like many pharaohs is projecting an image of his divintiy. The pictures outline the story of his conception to birth and he asserts the involvement of various gods in the process and the people hailing him upon his birth. However, the specifics of said divine involvement cannot be determined by the picture and there is no reason to believe any real parallel exists to the Gospel narratives without further evidence.

At this point, we must turn to the accompanying texts to reveal the true story. First of all, as mentioned, the child conceived is the Pharaoh Amunhetop III and not Horus (although each pharaoh is alligned with Horus during their reign, they is not the case at birth). Furthermore the woman is not Isis but Mutemwia – one of the wives of the Pharaoh Thutmose IV and the mother of Amenhetop III. As it turns out, the story has the god Amun-Ra appear in Mutemwia in the disguise of Thutmose IV. He then reveals his true divinity and seduces her wherein she was impregnated. Thus there was no virginal conception (Mutemwia was almost certainly not a virgin at that point and she was not claimed to be one), the supposed visit of the Holy Ghost was actually months later when the ka (an Egyptian theological concept) entered the new divine pharaoh in the womb of the pregnant Mutemwia. The only accurate depiction was adoring people but this was normal for the newborn son of a ruling monarch.

The fact is the alarm bells should have rung when other pictures in the same sequence were ignored. These apparently could not be placed within parallels in the Gospel nativity narratives and so were discarded. The reality is the whole sequence was an entirely Egyptian story unrelated to anything appearing in the Gospels and the attempts to read the Gospels into it reflected the bias, common in the nineteenth century, that all religions could be reduced to a single basic source. It is this error that is at the root of the astrotheological nonsense as well as other related nonsense.

Once more, however, Zeitgeist fails.

In the meantime, I will also be updating earlier booklet/ebooks I have done in the past refuting Frank Viola and George Barna’s Pagan Christianity and Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions. These will clean up some typos and add a few things as well. Finally, I will also issue some other ebooks dealing with specific anti-Christian conspiracy theorists. The first one in my sights is the one and only Jordan Maxwell: the conspriacy theorist crank whose drivel inspired Peter Joseph to make Zeitgeist.

That and my blogging should keep me busy for awhile.

A similar occurrence appears in Carrier’s criticism of Ehrman disucssing Pliny in that he once again focuses on things unrelated to the main issue of Jesus’ existence. Here is what Carrier wrote on Ehrman’s discussion of Pliny:

Ehrman almost made me fall out of my chair when he discusses the letters of Pliny the Younger. He made two astonishing errors here that are indicative of his incompetence with ancient source materials. First, he doesn’t correctly cite or describe his source (yet in this particular case that should have been impossible); and second, he fails to understand the difference between a fact and a hypothesis. Ehrman says that Pliny discusses Christians in his correspondence with emperor Trajan in “letter number 10,” and that “in his letter 10 to the emperor Pliny discusses” the problem of the imperial decree against firefighting societies in that province, “and in that context he mentions another group that was illegally gathering,” the Christians (pp. 51-52). This is all incorrect, and demonstrates that Ehrman never actually read Pliny’s letter, and doesn’t even know how to cite it correctly, and has no idea that the connection between Pliny’s prosecution of Christians and the decree against illegal assembly affecting the firefighters in Bithynia is a modern scholarly inference and not actually anything Pliny says in his letters.

In fact, Pliny never once discusses the decree against fire brigades in his letter about Christians, nor connects the two cases in any way. Moreover, neither subject is discussed in “letter number 10.” Ehrman evidently doesn’t know that all of Pliny’s correspondence to Trajan is collected in book 10 of Pliny’s letters. His letter on the fire brigades is, in that book, letter 33; and his letter on Christians is letter 96 (and therefore nowhere near each other in time or topic). On their possible connection (which I do believe scholars have correctly inferred), see my discussion in Not the Impossible Faith (pp. 418-22). But Ehrman has still gotten the context wrong. The law against illegal assembly was not a special law in that province, but had long been a law throughout the whole empire, and it was not targeted at fire brigades. Existing law required all social clubs to be licensed by the government, and many clubs were so licensed (including religious and scientific associations, burial clubs, guilds, and, of course, fire brigades). What was unique about Pliny’s province was that the state had been denying these licenses even to fire brigades, and Pliny asked Trajan to lift that injunction (and in letter 34, Trajan denies Pliny’s request, citing recent unrest in that province).

The connection between the Bithynian fire brigades and Christianity is not that there was any special injunction against Christians (Trajan, in letter 97, explicitly says there wasn’t), but that in letter 96 Christianity appears to be treated by Pliny like any unlicensed club, and both letters (96 and 97) make it clear there was no specific law or decree against Christians. Therefore, modern scholars conclude, the same law is probably what was being applied in both cases (prosecuting Christians and banning firefighting associations). And that’s kind of what Ehrman confusingly says (except he is evidently unaware that this is a modern conclusion and not actually stated in the source).

Ehrman’s treatment of the sources and scholarship on this issue betray the kind of hackneyed mistakes and lack of understanding that he repeatedly criticizes the “bad” mythicists of (particularly his inability even to cite the letters properly and his strange assumption that both subjects are discussed in the same letter–mistakes I would only expect from an undergraduate). But if even historicists like Ehrman can’t do their research properly and get their facts right, and can’t even be bothered to read their own source materials or understand their context, why are we to trust the consensus of historicists any more than mythicists? And more particularly, how many other sources has Ehrman completely failed to read, cite, or understand properly?

That’s quite a handful with multiple accusations that end up with Carrier concluding Ehrman had never read Pliny’s letter so let’s start unpacking it bit by bit. First of all, the conclusion Carrier asserts that Ehrman has never read Pliny’s letter is completely absurd. Does Carrier really expect us to believe that Bart Ehrman managed to get through graduate school and decades as a scholar studying and teaching early Christianity without ever so much as reading one of the most discussed pieces of evidence from that period? Don’t you think he might have been the least bit curious in all that time to have taken a glance at this little gem. Considering the entire thing is quoted in many books Ehrman would have read, it is hard to imaging he would have failed to read it. Granting that Carrier’s legions of worshipping fanboys are quite capable of believing anything he tells them, he will still have to do better to convince the rest of us. Remember that Carrier didn’t just claim that Ehrmnan failed to review the letter or missed some relevant information but that he never read it.

Of course the fact that Ehramn discussed the letter at all is some indication he must have read it somewhere. Even more damning is the fact that Ehrman supplies a reference where the letter can be read in a footnote for the very section of Ehrman’s book Carrier is discussing! Does he think Ehrman would have given the very page where the letter could be read without bothering to check the letter out for himself? The sheer hubris of such a claim reflects the knee-jerk reaction of Jesus mythicists who, following Robert M. Price’s lead, have taken to claiming Ehrman never read the sources he quoted but had graduate students do it for him. At no point do they ever supply any evidence but, as with most would be scholars on the fringes, occasionally cross the border between dubious though still remotely sane scholarship and tin foil hat nonsense.

So what evidence does Carrier present to demonstrate Ehrman has never read the Pliny correspondence? He provides the following as evidence:

• Ehrman refers to “letter 10″ when it actually is in a letter in Book 10 of Pliny’s works.
• Ehrman does not mention the connection to the issue with fire brigades, etc. is an assumption reconstructed from the evidence and is not explicitly mentioned in the letters.
• The issue of associations such as fire brigades and the Christians were in two different letters and Ehrman seems to infer they are in one letter.
• Ehrman states the law concerning associations was a local law when it in fact it was a Roman law.

On this basis, Carrier concludes Ehrman never read Pliny. However, even if all of the above were true, the most it says is that Ehrman was sloppy.

The fact is that Ehrman certainly has read Pliny’s letter concerning the Christians and likely read the one concerning associations but had little interest in reading anything by Pliny not concerned with Christianity. We must remember that Ehrman’s field of research was the New Testament and his interest in Pliny’s letters would be proportional to their application to early Christianity. I do not assume he has read Pliny’s letters in full and the one concerning Christianity has been reproduced numerous times in many books concerning Christianity and this is likely where he encountered it. Often these books reproduce the letter without giving the specific standard reference (Book 10, Letter 96). Until this controvery arose, I could not have told you the specific reference either and I have read the letter in question many times. It seem likely, given Ehrman’s presence among scholars, that he read the letters in question and the interpretations given by both New Testament scholars and historians and was in general agreement.

However, in his response, Ehrman was not entirely truthful either. He made mistakes in his presentation of Pliny, was not careful in his treatment of the subject in Did Jesus Exist?, and was not truthful in stating his errors were things he knew but wrote incorrectly. For example, his response to the “Letter 10″ blunder was to write it off as an amusing howler and claim that, well, of course he knew the real number of the letter. Here Ehrman is being less than honest since he has made the same mistake in the past: In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, he also refers to “Epsistle 10″ and so, if this was a howler, it was not a one-time howler. Interestingly, one finds that, with this exception, any faults in Ehrman’s treatment of Pliny would have been fixed if he had merely copied the text from the earlier book.

For example, the claim that he was treating two letters as one in Did Jesus Exist? is inferred by a rather sloppy paraphrase of what appeared in Ehrman’s earlier book where it was clear that Pliny had addressed problems with the law forbidding associations and, within that overall context, had written a letter (still misidentified as “Epistle 10″) concerning the Christians. In his newer book, it is rather muddy as to whether the context of associations is raised in the letter concerning the Christians or if the problem with the Christians occurred in the context of the law forbidding associations. Similarly, in the earlier book Ehrman referred to it as a “Roman law” and not a local one.

At this point, I think the real story becomes obvious. Ehrman had been teaching Pliny too his students for too long and, over a period of years, some errors had crept in his presentation. He merely repeated this in the book and never bothered double checking. After all, he knew this stuff! Things like this happen when you start believing your own press clippings.

As for Carrier’s objection that Ehrman presented a historical reconstruction as part of the letter, here Ehrman’s response was perfectly reasonable: this was a popular and not a scholarly work and the point was to give the average reader what historians consider the overall context without bogging them down in details. More importantly, it had almost nothing to do with the point Ehrman was making. He merely supplied a few background details and moved on to the main point.

All things considered, Carrier’s accusation that Ehrman has never read Pliny’s letter is so ridiculous that it makes Carrier look every bit the image of the loony conspiracy theorist he wishes to avoid. In reality, Ehrman probably knocked that section out with less research than I put into this blogpost and did a lousy job of paraphrasing himself in the process. There is one thing that Carrier did prove, however, and it is something that I have said all along: Bart Ehrman does not take Jesus mythicism seriously. More importantly, Bart Ehrman does not take Richard Carrier seriously and it is this point that has caused the rather outlandish outbursts we have seen in this exchange.

Related Articles:

Carrier’s review of Ehrman’s book

Ehrman’s reply to Carrier’s review, Pt. 1

Ehrman’s reply to Carrier’s review, Pt. 2

Carrier’s reply to Ehrman’s Reply, Pt. 1

Carrier’s reply to Ehrman’s Reply, Pt. 2

Ehrman says Earl Doherty “quotes professional scholars at length when their views prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” (p. 252). This claim is so completely false I cannot believe Ehrman read the work of Doherty with any requisite care. Neil Godfrey documents the fact that Doherty repeatedly points out exactly what Ehrman claims he doesn’t. This is actually a typical error I found in Ehrman’s book. He often makes blanket false statements that make mythicists look incompetent, thus the reader is misled into thinking they are.

This is a serious error, because it makes Ehrman’s book into nothing more than falsified propaganda. It is his responsibility as a scholar to have read these writings and accurately represent them to his readers so they don’t have to read them themselves. That he doesn’t do that erases any scholarly value this book could have had. Here, for example, the key point is that Doherty engaged himself like a competent scholar, used mainstream scholarship extensively, and correctly identified where his conclusions and interpretations differed from the scholars he cites and from mainstream scholarship generally. Ehrman hides this fact from his readers, and even misleads his readers by declaring exactly the opposite. Where else does Ehrman completely hide and misrepresent the views, statements, and methods of the mythicists he criticizes? If we cannot trust him in this case (and clearly we can’t, since what he says is demonstrably exactly the opposite of the truth), why are we to trust anything he says in this book?

The fault Ehrman allegedly argued and Carrier, citing Neil Godfrey’s post, rebuked was Doherty citing scholars for support without letting his readers know they were not mythicists. As Godfrey writes:

Can Earl Doherty ever have stooped so low! Quoting scholars when it suits but not informing his readers that they were not mythicists? What deviousness! This has to be outright deceit, of course, since if he really believed they were mythicist he would have shouted that out in bold caps.

Godfrey then demonstrates Doherty did let his readers know sources were not mythicists. Thus, if that were indeed Ehrman’s intent, I would agree Godfrey and Carrier had a valid criticism.

At the time, I did not recall the specific statement in Ehrman’s book under discussion and went scrambling back to my copy of Did Jesus Exist? to find it. When I did, it turned out that Ehrman’s criticism was not Doherty citing non-mythicists and not divulging it but his citing scholars to support his claim that Paul thought Jesus was crucufied in the spiritual realm when the statements cited had nothing to do with any such conclusion. Thus the real criticism was Doherty using citations out of context to support a conclusion they never hinted at even being a possibility.

This misreading of Ehrman’s intent can be seen clearly by reading the entire relevant passage:

One of the staunchest defenders of a mythicist view of Christ, Earl Doherty, maintains that the apostle Paul thinks that Jesus was crucified, not here on earth by the Romans, but in the spiritual realm by demonic powers. In advancing this thesis, Doherty places himself in an ironic position that characterizes many of his mythicist colleagues. He quotes professional scholars at length when their views prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis. The idea that Jesus was crucified in the spiritual realm is not a view set forth by Paul. It is a view invented by Doherty.

Note that Ehrman begins by identifying Doherty as a staunch supporter of the thesis that Paul believed Jesus was crucified in the spiritual realm. Then he prefaces the quote given by Carrier with “In advancing this thesis, …”, that is, the thesis that Paul believed in a spiritual crucfixion. Thus it is not the general case of Jesus mythicism to which Ehrman referred but that of the spiritual crucifixion. In fact, it could hardly be more obvious since this was the opening paragraph in a section titled “Was Jesus Crucified on the Spiritual Realm Rather Than on Earth?” Apart from flashing neon lights, it is hard to see how Ehrman could have made it any clearer.

The one fault with Ehrman’s statement was making this accusation against Doherty without providing any specific example of such misconduct. When Ehrman replied, he remedied this fault and even went further by pointing out that Doherty acted as though he were a scholar among other scholars who might agree or disagree on different points but never let on that scholars thought his overall thesis was not only wrong but absurdly so. His inclusion of a specific case was that of Doherty misusing a citation of Morna Hooker. As Ehrman wrote:

Carrier finds fault with my claim, about Earl Doherty, that he “quotes professional scholars at length when their view prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” (p. 252). He points out that Doherty does in fact indicate, in various places throughout his book, that the argument he is advancing at that point is not accepted by other scholars. As a result, Carrier states, my claim is nothing but “falsified propaganda.”

I am afraid that in this case Carrier misses my point. It is true that Doherty acknowledges that scholars disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. But the way he builds his arguments typically makes it appear that he is writing as a scholar among scholars, and that all of these scholars (with him in the mix) have disagreements on various issues (disagreements with him, with one another). One is left with the impression that like these other scholars, Doherty is building a tenable case that some points of which would be granted by some scholars but not others, and that the entire overall thesis, therefore, would also be acceptable to at least some of the scholars he engages with.

The reality, however, is that every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist). This is completely unlike other works of true scholarship, where scholars are cited as having disagreements on various points – but not, universally, as an entire body, on the entire premise and virtually all the claims (foundation and superstructure). I was urging that Doherty should come clean and inform his readers in clear terms that even though he quotes scholars on one issue or another, not a single one of these scholars (or indeed, any recognized scholar in the field of scholarship that he is addressing) agrees with the radical thesis of his book.

This criticism of Doherty applies not just to his overall argument but to his argument in the details, at the micro level. The way Doherty uses scholars is just not scholarly, since he often gives the impression that the scholars he quotes agree with him on a point when they expressly do not. Just to give a typical example: at one place in my book I discuss Doherty’s claim that Jesus was not crucified here on earth by Romans, but in the spiritual realm by demonic powers (p. 252). In his book Jesus: Neither God Nor Man Doherty quotes New Testament scholar Morna Hooker in support of his view. In the sentence before he introduces her, he says: “this self-sacrificing divinity (who operates in the celestial spheres, not on earth) is a paradigm for believers on earth” (p. 104). In other words, Christ was sacrificed in heaven, not on earth. Then he quotes Hooker: “Christ becomes what we are (likeness of human flesh, suffering and death), so enabling us to become what he is (exalted to the heights).” Here he cites Hooker to support his claim that Christ was paradigmatic for his followers (a fairly uncontroversial claim), but he does not acknowledge that when she says Christ became “what we are (likeness of human flesh)” she is referring to Christ becoming a human being in flesh on earth – precisely the view he rejects. Hooker’s argument, then, which he quotes in favor of his view, flat-out contradicts his view.

In short, I am not denying that Doherty sometimes acknowledges that scholars disagree with him; I am saying that he quotes them as though they support his views without acknowledging that in fact they do not.

It was pretty obvious that Carrier had erred but he certainly could have countered the misunderstanding was caused by Ehrman’s making an assertion without illustrating his point with an example and hence the resulting confusion was his own fault. However, it appears Carrier’s ego could not concede this point even when he was quite obviously mistaken and instead he fired off another round with far more indignance than substance:

Yes. Ehrman tries to completely reinterpret what he said on this point, but in this case the direct quotation of Ehrman I provided in my review conclusively rules out his entire attempt to claim to have said something else, so no further reply is needed from me. Just compare my quotation of Ehrman, with what Ehrman now wants you to think that meant, and no reasonable person will conclude with Ehrman on this one: Ehrman wrote “he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” and now claims that that sentence meant “I am not denying that Doherty sometimes acknowledges that scholars disagree with him.” You do the math on that.

Ehrman’s comment about Doherty’s use of Morna Hooker in particular has already been rebutted by Godfrey and Doherty, and I would add that reading what Doherty actually wrote in context, it’s obvious he in no way implied Hooker said Jesus became flesh in outer space; he quotes her on a different point altogether (that Jesus became what we are so that we may share in what he now is; a statement, by the way, I doubt Ehrman has any disagreement with). But even despite that, picking isolated quotations like this is moot anyway, because Ehrman stated a blanket generalization that Doherty never says something that in fact he frequently says–even explicitly about the whole issue of whether any scholar he cites agrees with his overall thesis (his introduction is quite clear about this, and covers all cases). Ehrman simply lies about this–or, again, is such a godawful writer he accidentally said the exact opposite of what he meant to say, and thus completely misrepresents Doherty and misinforms the reader.

Carrier’s attempt to defend his earlier statement asks that you just read his quote of Erhman. The problem is the quote does not provide the context of what thesis Ehrman was discussing and so the statement could mean just about anything. If the context I supplied earlier is correct and Ehrman was focused upon the “spiritual crucifixion”, then Carrier was wrong. If Erhman was referring to Jesus mythicism in general, then Carrier was right. Since Carrier supplied no context, the deception is quite obvious. On the other hand, I earlier supplied the context and below supply a jpeg from the Kindle version of the book to prove it:

Unless Carrier has a completely different version of Did Jesus Exist? from everyone else, I fail to see how he could maintain his position without a great deal of self-delusion.

While Ehrman is clearly correct on his intent, there is still the matter of whether he demonstrated his case of Doherty’s misuse of sources. As mentioned earlier, the book gave no examples but Ehrman supplied the case of Doherty citing Morna Hooker in his response to Carrier. In reply, Carrier claimed Earl Doherty did not use Morna Hooker in the manner Ehrman portrayed it. In order to make sense of this, we need to examine the details of the citation and see if Doherty overstepped the bounds of the proper use of sources. Here is the disputed passage in Doherty’s book in context:

But whoever wrote the christological hymn quoted by Paul in Philippians 2:6-11 has done just that. Here we have a divine being who “shared in God’s very nature,” who humbled himself and in obedience accepted death. As a result, “God raised him to the heights,” where he received the homage of all powers and beings on earth and in heaven. The implication is that this self-sacrificing divinity (who operates in the celestial spheres, not on earth) is a paradigm for believers on earth, who will similarly be exalted as a consequence of their own obedience and death. As Morna Hooker puts it (“Philippians 2:6-11″ in Jesus undPaulus, p. 15If):

Christ becomes what we are (likeness of flesh, suffering and death), so enabling us to become what he is (exalted to the heights).

All this fits into that most fundamental of ancient concepts outlined earlier: the idea that earth was the mirror image of heaven, the product proceeding from the archetype, the visible material counterpart to the genuine spiritual reality above. Heavenly events determined earthly realities. It follows that in such a philosophical system, the determining acts of divine forces which conferred salvation would of necessity be located not on earth but in that higher realm. Everything Paul says places him in that sort of thought world.

The problem with Doherty’s citation of Hooker is quite obvious. Carrier’s excuse is that Doherty is only using her to note that “that Jesus became what we are so that we may share in what he now is” but her statement, contrary to Doherty’s claim, does not fit into his schema at all: she is explicitly referring to Jesus becoming a man on earth! Now Doherty is free to try reinterpreting Philippians 2:6-11 and make the same point on his own but it appears there was no reason to cite Hooker apart from using her as an academic crutch to lend support to his dubious reconstructions.

Thus we see that on every point in this dispute, Ehrman was right and Carrier was wrong. I think we are staring to see a pattern.

Related Articles:

Carrier’s review of Ehrman’s book

Ehrman’s reply to Carrier’s review, Pt. 1

Ehrman’s reply to Carrier’s review, Pt. 2

Carrier’s reply to Ehrman’s Reply, Pt. 1

Carrier’s reply to Ehrman’s Reply, Pt. 2

Neil Godfrey article on Ehrman’s statement about Doherty’s citations

Apparently the occasion for the request was a reader’s exchange with a Muslim apologist who cited it as evidence against the Trinity. It never ceases to amaze me how Muslims who would howl if you began citing heretical Islamic groups or critics of Islam against them with cries that you must use only orthodox Islamic sources to understand Islam think nothing of using atheists, pseudo-Christian heretics, and anti-theistic crackpots against Christianity. Can we see a bit of a double standard at work here? Of course, when you read some of the nonsense that passes for the life of Jesus in the Qur’an (Moses was Jesus’ uncle?? You’re kidding me, right??), it is no surprise they like to place the attacks elsewhere.

The cited article comes from the website of the Pastoral Bible Institute (PBI) which was formed when a split occurred in the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) when those loyal to earlier teachings of the group’s founder Charles Taze Russell were disenchanted after the takeover of Joseph Rutherford after Russell’s death. The movement today is rather small although it still publishes The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom magazine. When discussing Christianity, it seems Muslims always appeal to fifth rate scholarship from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Here it is even worse as it uses sixth rate scholarship from a Jehovah’s Witnsesses spinoff.

As I read the article, I was struck by how completely misleading and dishonest it was with citations. In some cases, Hagensik could not even get basic facts straight about the sources they supposedly quoted. In others, the source was quotemined to give an impression that was misleading. Given the propensity of many of those in such restorationist movements to copy each others’ citations without so much as an attempt at independent verification, it seems probable that she has never read the sources quoted. Indeed, that would be better for her repuation given the complete incompetence displayed therein.

Take for instance the treatment of the late Jaroslav Pelikan. Pelikan, perhaps the greatest church historian of the twentieth century is described as “a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale.” While he was a professor at Yale, Dr. Pelikan spend most of his life as a Lutheran prior to his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy. He was never a member of the Catholic Church. Still, this biographical error is not quite so egregious as the way he is quotemined to make polemical points.

For example, she quotes Pelikan as stating:

One of the most widely accepted conclusions of the 19th century history of dogma was the thesis that the dogma of the Trinity was not an explicit doctrine of the New Testament, still less of the Old Testament, but had evolved from New Testament times to the 4th century.

but then she follows this up by commenting “If the Trinity did not originate with the Bible, where did it come from?” Exucse me? How does she come up with that non sequitur from what Pelikan wrote? He certainly never said that the doctrine was not contained in the Bible but that it was not explicit in the Bible. That is, the doctrine does not appear at the surface of the text but was deduced from it over a longer period of time.

It is no secret that doctrines developed over time as heresies arose and precise definitions were needed to exclude them from earlier less precise explanations. In succession, Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism were all excluded by the further development of doctrines as previously unthought of possibilities arose as new heresies. It was the Church wrestling with its understanding of the nature of God and Christ in the Bible that led to these defintions as things not easily seen at the surface were understood through later reflection. At no point does Pelikan ever state the doctrine is not Scriptural. In fact, as a Lutheran and later as an Easter Orthodox Christian, he would have believed it wholeheartedly.

Hagensik also tries to employ Pelikan as evidence of Christian compromise with the pagan world. She writes:

In the desire to grow, the Church compromised truth, which resulted in confusion as pagans became Christians and intermingled beliefs and traditions. In his Emergence of Catholic Tradition, Pelikan discusses the conflict in the Church after AD 70 and the decline of Judaic influence within Christianity. As more and more pagans came into Christianity, they found the Judaic influence offensive. Some even went so far as to reject the Old Testament

What she does not tell you is that here when Pelikan is speaking of those who were offended by and/or rejected the Old Testament’s Jewish influences, he is speaking of movements such as Gnosticism and Marcionism that were condemned by the Church! Nor does she bother to explain why, if the Church was in such a hurry to become pagan, it would stand itself apart from Roman society and suffer through a series of persecutions instead of just getting along with the status quo. She would have no answer because her claims are baseless and her “citations” of scholars like Pelikan are comnplete distortions.

Pelikan is again employed elsewhere to allege Christian use of paganism in their employment of the Roman Sibylline oracles in apologetics. In this regard, Hagensik writes:

(Pelikan) confirms the Church’s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called ‘Sibyllists’ by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, ‘Dies irae,’ which foretold the ‘coming of the day of wrath’ based on the ‘dual authority of David and the Sibyl’.

What she does not tell you, and what Pelikan makes quite clear, is that later Sybelline oracles drew upon not just pagan but Jewish and Christian sources as well. These texts were often a syncretistic stew that used influences from various cults then popular in the Roman Empire and claimed they knew about them centuries before they existed. Some perhaps overenthusiastic Christians seeing these supposedly ancient texts predicting something akin to the coming of Jesus used them to say that even the pagans’ own oracles know Jesus is Lord. However, it is quite clear when you read the Apologists in question that they think this information was obtained from demons. It turns out from various anachronisms these were likely post-New Testament documents drawing upon an existing knowledge of Christianity.

Much else of the article is of similarly poor quality. Hagensik draws upon various descriptions of the gradual development of Christian doctrine by various authors and wrongly infers this somehow implies the doctrines were created out of whole cloth rather than from reflection upon the Biblical texts. As is popular in these circles, she seems to have little problem citing long outdated material or those from the most liberal of theologians even though their work undermines her own beliefs as well. One can always find someone in academia who will say just about anything but whether their opinion stands the test of time or whether the one citing them has the requisite background to discern their aims or abilities often indicates more than the cited work.

Of course, Hagensik’s own aim is to somehow demonstrate the Trinity is pagan in origin. This is undoubtedly rooted in her own ignorance of the doctrine. I have already given a brief exposition of the doctrine here and it is quite clear she is completely ignorant of what the doctrine teaches and seems to confuse it with tritheism. In attempting to link it with various pagan configurations of three gods, she not only proves her ignornace of Trinitarian theology but of paganism as well.

There are various groups of gods in the ancient pagan world that were connected in various combinations of two, three, four, and other numbers. I will restrict myself to those that use three since these are the only ones that we need be concerned with here. One sort of combination was that of the ruling family of gods with father, mother, and child such as the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. It is confusion with this sort of triad we see in the Qur’an where it seems to think Christians included Mary in the Trinity along with Allah and Jesus. Of course, why God would be confused about the definition of the Trinity over three centuries after it was defined immediately calls into question the alleged inspiration of said document but that is a topic for another day.

A second sort of triad also appears in the context of some Egyptian deities. It was a strange occurrence that various Egyptian deities could be combined into a new form of deity drawing upon aspects of both gods. You could have such gods as Re-Horakhty (Re and Horus of the Horizon) or Osiris-Apis (who became popular in Hellenstic times as Sarapis) and there were also combinations that involved three gods. Some of these involved the sun with different gods associated with the different periods of the day (sunrise, noon, sunset). The three gods were sometimes combined as one god but they were also considered three separate gods with the combined god takings its place alongside them. The inner working logic of Egyptian theology is about as far removed as one can get from anything concered with the Trinity.

Finally, there are some combinations of deities that might be considered modalistic. For example the Hindu Trimurti concept (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) is often wrongly compared to the Christian Trinity. First of all, the concept of this triad as sharing one being was not emphasized until the Puranic period beginning in the fourth century whereas the doctrine of the Christian Trinity had already been debated for some time by then. Moreover the concepts are completely different. The Hindu Trimurti is a modalistic concept and such an idea had already been condemned by the Church before it was fully developed in Hindusim.

Nor do I mean to infer the Hindus were copying Christian ideas. Each developed within their own specific theological context independent of the other. Second Temple Judaism had already begun personifying aspects of the divine such as the Spirit of God or the Word (Memra) of God, often identified with Wisdom, and this carried over into Christian theology. This is not to say Second Temple Judaism was Trinitarian but the seeds of its ideas were already in place to be developed as “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Hindu Trimurti, on the other hand, was natural to the cyclical understanding of Hinudism where creation, preservation, and destruction work in cycles each associated with one of the three gods of the Trimurti. Such a cyclical concept is completely foreign the linear understanding of time in both Judaism and Christianity.

Again, when dealing with this topic, bad sources are Hagensik’s refuge. First of all, she makes use of the utterly worthless Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. Hislop was a nineteenth century restorationist who was partiularly anti-Catholic and sought to demonstrate traditional Christian beliefs all came from Babylon. Of course, extensive deciphering of the Babylonian cuneiform tablets had not yet occurred and knowledge of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was in its infancy so one supposes he thought he could just make stuff up about them and did. His book is a testimony to how fundametalist Christians can often embrace obvious crackpottery without so much as checking a single source.

One who can give testimony to that fact is Ralph Woodrow. Hislop’s book was written in the often floral language of the Victorian Age and seemed a bit stilted to modern ears. Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religions using much of Hislop’s material as the basis for his own book. When challenged by a reader to check Hislop’s sources, Woodrow set out to demonstrate to his critic that the thesis could be proven. As he checked the source material, he found to his horror that Hislop had completely misrepresented the source material and the whole thing was a pack of lies. Woodrow withdrew his book from publication and issued another titled The Babylon Connection? wherein he demonstrated Hislop’s (and his own earlier) work was a total distortion of history and could not be trusted. Yet here is Hagesik using this crackpot book as something akin to reliable scholarly evidence!

One book that is reliable with regards to paganism is Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many by the Egyptologist Erik Hornung. Hornung is certainly a trustworthy authority on the religion of ancient Egypt and the book cited is considered a classic on the subject. The problem with Hagensik using it is that she either has not read the book or has severe issues with reading comprehension for her characterization of Hornung’s assertions were complete nonsense. Hagensik writes:

The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: ‘[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,’ which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in ‘one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all’ (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.

First of all, using a proven liar and crackpot like Hislop as a counterweight to a true scholar like Hornung is ridiculous enough, but she also distorts things by inserting that it was “monotheism” that was restricted to the wisdom texts. In fact, what Hornung asserts is that it was the use of a formula that used a certain Eygptian word that could apply to different gods in different contexts that was misunderstood as asserting some sort of underlying monotheism and this sort of phrasing was restricted to the wisdom texts. Moreover, the most common grouping was NOT the triad but rather dual combinations such as Re-Horakhty and Osris-Apis which were far more numerous. Perhaps an introductory class in Egyptology might be in order before she writes anything else in the future on this topic.

I could go on tearing this article apart but I think I have shown its completely misleading nature both in its attempts at characterizing both Christianity and paganism. I find it amusing that apparently some Islamic apologist would cite this drivel as evidence – thus proving he is every bit as ignornant (and likely more so) than the author. Perhaps he should study his Qur’an and explain to us how it is that Jesus could be the nephew of someone who lived and died a millennium before he was born.

This article will attempt to give some clarity on these points. At this point, I will not be giving a Biblical defense of the doctrine as that will come later. For those interested, one can read James White’s The Forgotten Trinity which gives an excellent Biblical defense of the Trinitarian position. However, I think it is important to first explain what the doctrine is that is being defended and then moving on in later posts to see if the doctrine appears in the pages of Holy Scripture.

The first thing one has to understand is that the doctrine is expressed in philosophical terminology. Some of the terms used also correspond to common words and there are misunderstandings as to what meaning is being conveyed. For example, terms that arise such as “substance” and “person” have technical meanings within the philosophical expression of the doctrine that are confused by their everyday use. When expressions of the doctrine speak of God being “three persons within one substance”, it does not mean what you would normally think of as a person or a substance. Other confusions can occur when Greek expressions of the doctrine using the predicate nominative form are transferred into English and misunderstood as ontological equivalences. Thus expressions such as “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God” does not mean “The Father = God”, etc., but that the essence of the Father is that of the one fully divine being.

Then there is the matter of the technical terminology itself. First of all, the Greek philosophical term “ouisa” (“essence” or “substance”) is the defining nature of that which is under discussion. That is, it is what makes something what it is. When we speak of the Triune God, it must be emphasized that there is only ONE essence. Hence there is only ONE God. If each of the three divine persons had their own essence, then that would be tritheism. That is definitely not the case here and those who claim the doctrine of the Trinity is a form of polytheism are hence either ignorant of the doctrine or are willfully dishonest.

Next we turn to the three persons. Part of the difficulty here is that there are two philosophical terms in Greek, both playing a role in the definition, and both are often translated into English as “person”: the first is “prosopon” and the second is “hypostasis.” The precise technical defintion of each must be properly understood as well as its role in setting the limits of the doctrine.

The term “prosopon” was derived from the Greek theatre where masks were used to identify the character and their emotional state. In philosophy, it can be considered the manifestation under which the essence is revealed. The term “hypostasis” refers to an underlying property of something. Both can be used in to describe aspects of the Trinity but either can be confusing when not understood properly in the context of the doctrine. It is the flexibility of these terms that makes it important to emphasize the contextual restrictions.

Problems occur when the terms are not understood within the context of the dicussion. Prosopon is insufficient on its own because it does not rule out the manifestations being used and shed according to the situation. That is, God could be the Father in one situation and the Son in another and the Spirit in yet another but these are roles God plays and do not correspond to something within the essence of God. Such a description is the early Christian heresy of Sabellianism (also called modalism) wherin the three persons are seen as modes of God’s existence in differing contexts. The problem with hypostasis is that it could be usedto refer to an underlying reality in the general sense and hence could be confused with essence or it could describe an underlying reality of a specific essence which in the case under discussion would be the three divine persons.

In the early Ecumenical Councils, they resolved the difficulty by using hypostasis but specfying in was three hypostases of one essence and hence ruled out the problemmatic interpretation of hypostasis. Thus the three persons are three hypostases that may be thought of as manifestations of God but cannot be thought of as merely contextual manifestations. The Three persons, rather than being modes in which God is manifested, are of the very nature of the divine essence. There is one divine essence which by its nature has three hypostases which each are manifested to us as individual prosopon.

The next question deals the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The doctrine speaks of the Son as eternally begotten of the Father while the Holy Spirit eternally procedes from the Father. The term “begotten” and “precession” are to be understood in terms of eternal relations between the persons of the Trinity and not as events occurring in a specific temporal frame. That is, all three persons are coeternal and coequal with the Father as the source relationally and with respect to authority. There has been a split on the precession of the Holy Spirit between East and West, with the latter adding the Holy Spirit proceeeds from both the Father and the Son, but the defenses by both Protestant and Catholic apologists make clear they have a different concept of precession in mind than that discussed at the Councils.

Now there are some properties that are reserved to the Council of God and we cannot know them this side of eternity. Here the early Christians rightly termed such questions as “mysteries.” Often those criticizing the doctrine deride this concept as they assume we should be able to comepletely comprehend the divine nature. It never occurs to them that such a comprehension only illustrates that what they have in mind cannot be God but only the preference of the corrupt human will.

The battles over Trinitarian theology in the first two Ecumenical Councils would also result in battles over Christology in later councils. The question then became when the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate, what was the nature of the union between His divinity and humanity. One position stated that the union was at the level of prosopon, as a human manifestation, but at the level of hypostasis, the divine and human remained distinct. This would imply that Christ was in fact two persons, one divine and one human, manifested in a single human form. Others went in the other direction and insisted there was one divine person whose human nature was subsumed into his divine nature. The Church took a middle view condmening both the first idea, called Nestorianism, and the second, called Monophysitism, for the view that the person of Christ was one at the level of hypostasis where He remained both fully divine and fully human. This definition, called the “hypostatic union”, remains the orthodox definition of the nature of Christ.

The above gives an outline of the doctrine of the Trinity with its terms defined correctly. Having properly defined the doctrine, we can later discuss whether or not it is found in the Bible. I happen to believe it most definitely is found there and all the arguments against it have either misinterpreted the passage, were based upon faulty understandings of the New Testament Greek, or were using “strawman” definitions of the Trinity.

In future posts, I will discuss various arguments against the Trinity both Biblical and historical, but for now I will assume this exposition will give some food for thought.

I have completed the first volume of three and will in this and future posts describe what you should expect to find in this book. This book has three parts in examining the whole astrotheological system. The first explains how the system came to pass in the successive influences of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Englightenment and how the successive combination of esoteric speculation, anti-Catholic polemic, and freethought skepticism put in place ideas that were eventually developed and assembled into a theory of religion that was enthusiastically embraced for a short period at the turn of the nineteenth century only to be discarded by serious scholars but embraced by occultists and various quack theorists. It is this mishmash of ideas that has recently been revived in some popular books and in films such as Zeitgeist.

The second part of the book is a point-by-point refutation of the astrotheological system. Here I explain why the whole explanation of ancient religion on the basis of the zodiac and precession is completely anachronistic and how it cannot possibly apply to Christianity. I examine the claims made about Christmas, Easter, the Star in the East, the Three Kings, etc. and demonstrate how they are based on misinformation and quotemined sources. Simply put, there is no there there.

The third part of the book is an examination of other considerations in comparative religion that are sometimes used by backers of the astrotheological theory. These are generally not legitimate as these other theories are incompatible with astrotheology but each of these also has issues that render it useless in discussing the origins of the Christian faith. Some of these ideas are more serious than others and the less serious ones are given less etensive examinations.

The book is thorougly doccumented and will give Christian apologists a good basis for understanding the whole system behind Zeitgeist and how to easily refute it. It will also give the lay Christian some idea of the sort of nonsense out there on the internet and how it can be addressed. Those interested can purchase the paperback version (over 300 pages) for 24.95 here or those with an Amazon Kindle can purchase the Kindle version for 9.99 here.

The ridiculous argument by Thunderf00t tries to argue from Craig not having as many citaions on average of his articles as those of some scientists – including himself (he is a chemist). Of course, the problem is that he is comparing apples and oranges: chemistry and other sciences depend on experiments that are used as the starting point for findings in other experiments which are then used in other experiments and so forth … Hence, scientific papers are heavy with citations of other scientific papers in the same field. The results of the experiment is what is seen as having value and not the authority of the one doing the experiment. The humaities, which often deal with theoretical speculation and the exploration of novel approaches to continuing debates, does not always have a supply of brute facts for appeal except to primary texts and basic facts of history. Thus it is not expected to be as “citation heavy” a field. Moreover, the main work of those in the humaities is usually in their books and not their papers. Thus Thunderf00t used the least likely elements of Craig’s work to be cited and compared it not to that of other philosophers but to scientists when such comparisons are completely irrelevant.

What if we were to turn the table by pointing out that Thunderf00t’s scientific papers were seemingly done with various other contributors and conclude he is not a very original thinker who can only come up with decent results by working in tandem with others? Thunderf00t could counter that collaborative efforts is generally how things are done in his field and “lone ranger” experimentation is highly unusual. In that he would be correct but it illustrates how one can distort things by applying standards from one field to another. Similarly, his application of citations to the case of a philosopher is also invalid.

This sort of misunderstanding of other fields is nothing new to Thunderf00t. He once did some videos on the Bible that only illustrated his inability to think in anything but a woodenly literal fashion. He thought the reference to Jezebel and her children in the Book of Revelation meant Jesus was going to punish innocent children when in fact it is a metaphor using the Old Testament figure Jezebel (wife of Ahab) as a symbol for the worship of false gods in the same way that calling someone a “Benedict Arnold” or a “Judas” would signify betrayal. The children were, of course, the followers of the one so condemned. In another case, Thunderf00t had been criticizing metaphors used in the Bible (ironic since he has so much trouble idenfying them) when he called in his defense a metaphor used by Abraham Lincoln referring to a house divided. The amusing thing here is that he was unaware that Lincoln was calling upon the “house divided” metaphor of Jesus recorded in the Bible. Thus with Thunderf00t we are dealing with someone who is clueless on what happens outside of a test tube.

While proving Thunderf00t’s critique of William Lane Craig is completely void of anything resembling a rational thought process, it still does not demonstrate whether or not William Lane Craig is a respected philosopher. For that you would have to refer to the opinions of other philosophers and the peer review process. Part of the problems we find with with internet atheists is that they often are former fundamentalist Christians who have merely transplanted their lack of sophistication to the other side. The leading figures of the other side are losers because they are the other side and their actual arguments are left unchallenged or given simplistic responses. Moreover, those who are Christian apologists like Craig are declared lousy philosophers because of their apologetics; their academic work, often bearing little resemblance to their apologetic work, is left unexamined but condemned nonetheless.

Thus, when examining whether Craig is a respectable philosopher, we should note whether or not he has managed to go through the peer review process successfully and has shown his work is given respect in his field. First of all, he managed to gain entry to the graduate program in philosophy at the University of Birmingham (UK) and achieve his Ph.D when it is certain not all the faculty shared his theological perspective. When we turn to his publishing record for his academic books, we find there are very reputable academic publishers such as Edwin Mellen, E. J. Brill, Rutgers University Press, Clarendon, Routledge and Oxford University Press. He has published papers in scholarly journals on three continents. He has served as an editor on volumes of collected papers on the philosophy of religion and the philosophical implications of relativity theory. These are not small accomplishments.

Are we to believe the entire peer review process at numerous academic journals and academic publishing houses broke down for this one guy? Are we to think that Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher, was drunk the night he wrote glowing praise of Craig’s abilities as a philosopher? Does William Lane Craig have incriminating photographs of everyone in the academic publishing industry? Or is it more likely that Thunderf00t was once more stepping into a field where he doesn’t have a clue and is proving himself woefully ignorant about anything that cannot be reduced to chemicals in a glass vial? It certainly seems the latter is far more likely than any of the former.

So we have to listen to the endless whining of a boorish collection of polemical atheists on Youtube with no philosophical training, no knowledge of the state of arguments in the field, and the subtlety and sophisitication of your average episode of South Park claiming to be better judges of the worth of Craig’s philosophical work than his peers. To make matters worse, most have never read a single item of his philosophical corpus and are only judging it by his videos and books in popular apologetics for Christian layman. Apparently they are under the impression that popular books like Reasonable Faith are the sort of things under discussion when Craig’s worth as a philosopher is evaluated. One might laugh if it weren’t so pathetic.

Despite Thunderf00t’s certainty William Lane Craig is an academic midget, it appears that he is just selling his fanboys a load of hooey. Not the first time he has done this and he has his audience pegged well. They eat up his ignorant drivel even when it is quite apparent he is arguing against the evdience which, when you think about it, is a strange thing for a scientist to be doing.

Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through 3 ages, while foreshadowing a 4th. In the Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull calf. In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each other in order to purify themselves. Most Biblical scholars would attribute this anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, or something to that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. This is why Jews even today still blow the Ram’s horn. Moses represents the new Age of Aries, and upon the new age, everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology.

Now Jesus is the figure who ushers in the age following Aries, the Age of Pisces the Two Fish. Fish symbolism is very abundant in the New Testament, as Jesus is known as the Great Fisherman, he feeds 5000 people with bread and “2 fish.” When he begins his ministry walking along Galilei, he befriends 2 fisherman, who follow him. The Pope’s Miter or hat is incontrovertibly a fish-head, representing Pisces. And I think we’ve all seen the Jesus-fish on the backs of people’s cars. Little do they know what it actually means. It is a Pagan astrological symbolism for the Sun’s Kingdom during the Age of Pisces. Also, Jesus’ assumed birth date is essentially the start of this age.

At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next passover will be after he is gone, Jesus replied: “Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water… follow him into the house where he entereth in.” This scripture is by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references. The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius, the water-bearer, who is always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water. He represents the age after Pisces, and when the Sun (God’s Sun) leaves the Age of Pisces (Jesus), it will go into the House of Aquarius, as Aquarius follows Pisces in the precession of the equinoxes. Also Jesus is saying is that after the Age of Pisces will come the Age of Aquarius.

Now, we have all heard about the end times and the end of the world. Apart from the cartoonish depictions in the Book of Revelation, the main source of this idea comes from Matthew 28:20, where Jesus says “I will be with you even to the end of the world.” However, in King James Version, “world” is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations. The actual word being used is “aeon”, which means “age.” “I will be with you even to the end of the age.” Which is true, as Jesus’ Solar Piscean personification will end when the Sun enters the Age of Aquarius. The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Let’s tell that to the approximately 100 million people in America who believe the end of the world is coming.

As with everything else, there is nothing above that even remotely makes sense to anyone with the least bit of knowledge of religion in antiquity. First of all, as already noted, the twelve sign zodiac was only developed around 500 BC and precession discovered around 150 BC, so the whole idea of the Old Testament texts speaking of astrological signs not yet used or precession not yet discovered is rather remote. Moreover, the association of the constellation we call Aries with a ram was a very late development (it was originally associated with a farmhand) and so the supposed “Age of Aries” is anachronistic. Finally, the division of the sky into regions corresponding to constellations used in the film, as mentioned previously, is a modern one and not the one used at the time. Under the system then in place, Jesus would have been half a millennium to early for any supposed “Age of Pisces.”

It is also a treat to listen to the Biblically illiterate Peter Joseph lecture scholars on the true meaning of the golden calf story. Perhaps if he had actually bothered reading Exodus, he would realize that the reason most Biblical scholars think it is about idolatry is because that is exactly what the text says was the reason!! Take, for example, Moses’ description of the Israelites’ great sin:

So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold.” (Genesis 32:31)

It appears then the sin was making gods of gold and not making a bull during the new age of Aries the Ram or some such nonsense. Funny what happens when you read the texts before you pontificate them instead of getting all of your information from tinfoil hat wearers like Jordan Maxwell! Oh well, another lesson learned. By the way, the reason the Jews used ram’s horns for the shofar is the same reason many ancient cultures used ram’s horns: they make great horns.

Jesus, as mentioned, was far too early for an any supposed “Age of Pisces” at the time. Somehow it is supposed to be significant that fish was eaten in a region of the world where fish was a major part of the diet. Nor was Jesus ever called “the great fisherman” and the design of the pope’s mitre evolved over centuries and is supposed to repreaent the flames of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and not a fish’s head. These last items proved so embarrassing they were removed from later versions of the film.

It never occurs to the blindly ignorant Peter Joseph that repeated mentions of bulls, rams, fish, and water in agricultural societies is not that much of a shock. He also only foucuses upon the mentions of the icon for the corresponding age he is trying to force into the text. For example, why did God choose to provide Abraham a ram to sacrifice when this pre-Mosaic period called for a bull? And what of the instructions for Aaron to sacrifice bulls and goats: Was God being nostalgic for prior ages of Taurus and Capricorn? Would not the crossing of the waters of the Red Sea indicate Aquarius? In the New Testament, Jesus is called both the Good Shepherd and the Lamb of God so would that not point to Aries? He is baptized with water so would that not signify Aquarius? He is referred to as the Lion of Judah so would that not point to Leo? Joseph has merely cherry-picked the passages that convey the metaphor he wishes to emphasize and ignored those contradicting it.

But the greatest failure of all is the laughable attempt at forcing the “Age of Aquarius” into the text of Luke 22:10. Here is the full context of the passage:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters 11 and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there.” And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

As we can see from the preceding passage, the meal had nothing to do with some date far in the future. In fact, when one continues reading, it turns out this passage leads up to the Last Supper. So the meal was not for some future “Age of Aquarius” but that very evening – a meal eaten over two thousand years ago! Even more ridiculous was the identification of the man with the pitcher of water as Aquarius. The “water bearer” in question was not even the one Jesus wanted the disciples to meet but a mere house servant who introduced them to the master of the house and then was completely out of the story. But somehow Peter Joseph thought this passage describing how the Apostles prepared for the Last Supper two millennia ago described some date still to come. Only in the world of tinfoil hats!

Peter Joseph then seemingly alludes to some sort of conspiracy because the phrase “end of the world” is used instead of “end of the age.” What he doesn’t tell you is that is used in the King James Version and not any of the translations more commonly used by Christians (NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV) which use the more literal “end of the age.” Yet the “end of the age” is describing the end of the period until Jesus’ return and thus actually does describe the end of this world and not some future astrological age. As always, Zeitgeist fails.