Bold claims.
Provide examples, proof. Show your work.
If you're going to call something lies, be prepared to back it up.
P.S. Please don't quote Bible verse as "proof".
You are obviously too lazy to search for yourself, so I'll humour you for the moment.
Off the top of my head:
1. The film starts by claiming that the story of Christ is essentially the same as the story of approximately 30 other religious figures. It makes specific reference to alleged parallels between the story of Christ and the story of the Egyptian god 'Horus'. However, the story of Horus in no way parallels that of Christ. Horus was not born of a virgin (his mother had intercourse with a dismembered penis), was not born on the 25th of December, did not have 12 disciples, did not become a teacher at age 12, did not walk on water, did not get baptised when he was 30, did not got into hiding until he was 30, and he was not crucified. The film claims that all of those things happened according to Egyptian mythology. In reality, NONE of those things are even mentioned in the story of Horus according to Egyptian mythology. There are many more inaccuracies pertaining to the story of Horus, but I can't be bothered explaining them all. See here:
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html and here
Link Removed and here
Link Removed
2. The film claims that Horus, Jesus, and approximately 30 other religious figures are claimed to have been born on the 25th of December. This appears to be a key point in the argument because the film makers claim that all the stories share the same details, including the birth date. In reality, none of them were or ever claimed to be born on the 25th. It is thought by most scholars that Jesus was born around the spring time, while the birth of Horus was supposedly on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, around the 15th of November.
3. The film claims that Jesus the person never existed, despite literary evidence to the contrary. The following was taken from wikipedia:
Michael Grant stated (in 1977) that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:
…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[75]
The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the gospels. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[5][6] Most critical scholars believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are at least partially accurate[7] [8]
Whether you believe that He was God incarnate or not, the reality is that He did exist as a a person. Even the critics concede that. The film, however, ignored the work of hundreds of scholars and historians and the vast majority of knowledgeable critics and intellectuals and wrote him off as a myth, without providing any evidence or backing up the claim.
There are countless more inaccuracies, a large number to do with the Mithra/Jesus parallel.
I'm not going to go into more detail because it's late. You know why the film makers didn't back up any of their idiotic claims? Because they can't. Why don't you do a little research yourself rather than believing what you are told to believe. You'd be surprised at how inaccurate the film is.
