Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

zeitgeist debunked and we still dont care

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+26 more 
posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Zeitgeist the new “truth” movie being promoted by its makers on conspiracy message boards around the internet has been thoroughly debunked. It is disgusting to think the makers would try to sell it as a “truth movie” considering that it has dozens (over 50) easily provable factual errors. This is a slap in the face to the people who have died and will continue to do so in this patriot movement, we would expect nothing less than 100% accuracy of any movie in the 911 truth realm. We are talking about specific false claims that have been debunked for years, yet because this is the first time its been put into a form of a movie It has new life. This is not about a defense of a religion, it is about the integrity of information and our right not to be lied to by people claiming to be “truthers”
Lets take a look at the references the makers of this movie list as their sources for this information on their website: www.zeitgeistmovie.com...

You will notice that they don’t site one single original source for the Jesus similarities they claim exist, you would think if it was true that the ancient texts showed such similarities, they would simply site these ancient texts. They don’t because they do not exist, Its quite simple, They instead offer books from authors such as Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Doherty. This is laughable as a resource list if you have looked in to these claims. It’s the equivalent as me referencing Glenn Beck to prove there is no 911 conspiracy. I know its hard to believe that Tsarion or Alan Watt have been quoting known disinfo in their dissemination of this idea, but look for yourself, The numerous claims made by this movie concerning Jesus’s many similarities are either true or false. Before I move on here are the links to various debunkings of the “Christ myth”

Here is a great look at the ridiculous claims of most of the authors on that list (how they get away with this stuff is beyond rational thought)
www.tektonics.org...
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
www.thedevineevidence.com...
I like the next site because no stone is left unturned in his search for more and more "Christ myths deities" to debunk, he has about 80 claims looked in to here:
kingdavid8.com...
Because this movie spent so much time claiming the similarities of hours and Jesus here is a specific debunking to show how clearly uninformed in mythology and how easily duped the makers of this film are in making this claim.
www.tektonics.org...
Now for Leedoms "Virishna" I wish there was more information to go on, but there is no such deity, at least in our earth's currently verifiable history. he apparently didn't bother with fact checking. Here is one account of the hunt for Virishna from an earlier source:
kingdavid8.com...

This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER.




posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
continuing from.. "ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER." This illustrates that the Vatican has very little to do with true Christianity except for the obvious problem that they themselves always claim that they ARE Christianity.
Ill put it this way:

I know, the catholic church very well may be terribly evil, It stands to reason that that is where evil would want to set up shop. but lets please stop using its pagan based rituals to prove anything about Christianities founder. Yes, the "church" does seem to be used as a control mechanism…TO CONTROL YOUR PERCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. It seems so obvious. Jesus was actually one of the most anti-religious people that ever walked the earth He had compassion for every low down person he came into contact with, except for the "clergy" of his day. They were the only people he ever spoke a harsh word to..maby a few money changers too. The guy in the new testament would be freaking furious with an organization that claims the kind of things the Vatican claims.


Now, on to one of my favorite subjects, the Zodiac, or the Mazzaroth. This movie’s half truths and outright lies about the zodiac are sickening. The unfortunate thing is that you have to know a good deal about science, history, mythology, astronomy, and physics in order to start to even understand what is at play with this system. It is not as simple as many are led to think And because of a lack of diligent study and an overabundance of half assed research, people swallow what they are told without questioning or learning anything further.
I warn you, if you REALLY want to know what the zodiac is, if you want to know why the illuminated groups venerate the “as above so below” maxim, it wont be easy, and you will have to go to “school”, the long and the short of it is that the system, and its use and history, have been perverted to show and do things are believed only because of what you are NOT told. it is a matter of withholding information as much or more that mis-information. The truth is stranger than the half truth.
I will put some links here for those who wish to look into this, I encourage everyone who cares to do so:
www.ldolphin.org...
server.firefighters.org...
video.google.com...
video.google.com...

You can argue with me about a lot of things here (and Im sure you will) but that this movie has a great deal of factual errors is not up for debate, as I said most of these claims were debunked 100 years ago. I am very worried about the future of this truth movement of which I am proudly a part of, I know that a division on dogmatic grounds is coming, and that all the great work we have done exposing and fighting this New World Order will be undone, by design. Be careful the ones proving the most stuff are often the ones to watch out for, they do this because they know that certain truths are coming out they know that they cant stop the awakening that’s coming. so they try to temper it by supplying us with the best real information through their agents and having them only lie about key elements, It is very insidious and very evil. We must be alert and challenge EVERYTHING even if you wanted to hear everything this movie had to say it does not make it true.

One more thing, As this movie suggest, I too believe we are at the end of an age. An astronomical age and a spiritual age, the precession of the equinoxes is a real thing,
They have tried to tell you that this impending change is a non-christian Idea, This IS the Idea! It is clearly described in the bible we will indeed change, as will this world, and why it must do so. but they are keeping you from seeing the origin of the warning! The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim It is our duty.


+48 more 
posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If you fail to see the connections between Christianity and ancient pagan sun worship, I'd say that's a personal problem.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I will count you as one who doesn't care about the factual errors in this movie.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amenti
I will count you as one who doesn't care about the factual errors in this movie.



count me as well,funny how all of the links you give are from sites that agree with the same thinking as you..(i assume x-tain). like when i read this llittle snippet from one of the site's you linked..



Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Zoroaster stories?
Hardly. Zoroaster was a Persian prophet, though some (perhaps erroneously) refer to him as a god. While some scholars claim he was first worshipped around 1700 B.C., the earliest existing references to Zoroaster come from around 600 B.C. However, almost everything we know about Zoroaster come from texts written over 300 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and the earliest existing copies of these texts are from the 13th century. This creates a serious problem for those claiming Christianity "borrowed" from Zoroastrism, since the evidence suggests that it was the other way around, that the Zoroaster character was changed to become more like Jesus in post-Christian times.
1. Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason."

Zoroaster's mom was married when she gave birth to him, and there's nothing suggesting she was celibate while married. The "ray of divine reason" was apparently a purely spiritual thing, and Zoroaster's body actually was created the usual way


i thought marry was married also?...even though some claim she was not,what about the time she spent with her friend (3 months away from Joseph)? she could have been knocked up then.. so as in the above ... "there's nothing suggesting she was celibate while with joseph"

can you see how trying to debunk truth is pointless.

```````````````
Changed quote tags to 'ex' tags on external material

[edit on 8/7/07 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN

i thought marry was married also?...even though some claim she was not,what about the time she spent with her friend (3 months away from Joseph)? she could have been knocked up then.. so as in the above ... "there's nothing suggesting she was celibate while with joseph"

can you see how trying to debunk truth is pointless.


Your error is not understanding two things, first is the Jewish marriage of that day, After the initial agreemant to marry, what followed was a period much like today which we call being engaged to be married, this is when the husband would go to prepare a place for them to live and would return to get her when it was ready, they are still committed to one another although they had not officially married, this was the situation at the time of Marys conception. It is quite clear on this.
your other flaw is not seeing that, in this example, it was explicit in stating that mary was in fact a virgin, while in the example you site of Zoraraster all we are told is that the parents were already married only, It is silent on the issue totally, to say that Zoroaster was "born of a virgin" is at best a guess and totally un-verifiable whatsoever with the texts dated BCE



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
miss understood?.. i dont think so.. for one the word "virgin" has been debated for years and still no one really agrees on what the true translation of the word is.. so her being a virgin or not really dont matter to me cause she never exsisted to begin with.



The Virgin is the first aspect of the Goddess that dates back to Grecian times. "Holy Virgin" was a title for temple prostitutes, a duty of the priestesses of Ishtar, Asherah, or Aphrodite. The title itself did not mean virginity, but it simply meant "unmarried." The functions of these "holy virgins" was to give forth the Mother's grace and love by sexual worship; to heal; to prophecy; to perform sacred dances; to wail for the dead; and to become Brides of God.The Semites, and parthenioi by the Greeks called children born of such virgins bathur. Both terms mean virgin-born. According to the Protoevangelium, the Virgin Mary was a kadesha and perhaps was married to a member of the priesthood known as the "fathers of the gods."

There is an analogy between Mary's impregnation and that of Persephone's. The latter, in her virgin guise, sat in a holy cave and began weaving the great tapestry of the universe, when Zeus, appearing as a phallic serpent, impregnated her with the savior Dionysus. Mary sat in a temple and began to spin a blood-red thread, representing Life in the tapestry of fate. The angel Gabriel came to Mary, telling her that the spirit of the Lord would over shadow her and she would be with child. (Luke 1:28-31) This child was Jesus Christ, who many call savior.

In the Hebrew Gospels the name Mary is designated by almah which means "young woman." The reason that Mary is held to have remained a virgin by Catholics and some Christians is because Matthew in his gospel used the Greek word parthenos, meaning "virgin," instead of almah when referring to the virgin birth of Jesus. Also almah was derived from Persian Al-Mah, the unmated Moon goddess. Another cognate of this term was the Latin alma, "living soul of the world," which is essentially identical to the Greek psyche, and the Sanskrit shakti. So the ancient Holy Virgins, or temple-harlots, were "soul-teachers" or "soul- mothers." Thus comes the term alma mater. A.G.H.

Sources:
Walker, Barbara G., The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, New York, HarperCollins, 1983, pp. 1048-1051


The author of Matthew is saying that Mary's "virgin" birth of Jesus would fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.
The actual Hebrew verse which the author of Matthew attempts to manufacture a prophecy fulfillment out of doesn't say a virgin would give birth but that a young woman would conceive. As an aside, the KJV Bible does as most Christian Bibles do, which is to translate the Hebrew word "almah" to mean virgin instead of young woman. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that maintains the term young woman instead of replacing it with the word "virgin". The basic issue is that Isa 7:14 doesn't have anything to do with Jesus in the first place.


you cant use the bible to prove the bible....what's the matter with not thinking the way your gawd thinks?.... it's not going to effect you... right? so whats the big deal?

``````````````````````````````
Changed quote tags to external tags



[edit on 8/7/07 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN

you cant use the bible to prove the bible



I wasn't and didn't..you must just like to say that line

Can I use ancient texts to disprove recent accounts of them?



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by amenti

This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER.


Personally, I've come to the conclusion that December 25th was an authentic Christian celebration.

If the star of bethlehem was actually the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus with the star Regulus ("king star") in Leo (Judah) in 2 BC, then Christmas may be a reference to Jupiter's retrograde motion after the event into Virgo (the virgin).

The reason for thinking this is that Jupiter's retrograde motion in Virgo ended on . . . December 25th, 1 AD.

In the words of matthew, "the star came to rest over the place where the star was." This maky refer to the planet Jupiter's apparent "stopping" in Virgo. The constellations may have been a map of Israel, with Virgo corresponding to Bethlehem.

I explored it in detail, with footnotes, in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



all the best.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Dr Strangecraft, oh I agree, there is some interesting information available to postulate a time frame of some sort, and I think its a worthy undertaking. I will look at what you have, thanks



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by amenti
the new “truth” movie being promoted by its makers on conspiracy message boards around the internet has been thoroughly debunked. It is disgusting to think the makers would try to sell it as a “truth movie” considering that it has dozens (over 50) easily provable factual errors. This is a slap in the face to the people who have died and will continue to do so in this patriot movement, we would expect nothing less than 100% accuracy of any movie in the 911 truth realm. We are talking about specific false claims that have been debunked for years, yet because this is the first time its been put into a form of a movie It has new life. This is not about a defense of a religion, it is about the integrity of information and our right not to be lied to by people claiming to be “truthers”
Lets take a look at the references the makers of this movie list as their sources for this information on their website: www.zeitgeistmovie.com...

You will notice that they don’t site one single original source for the Jesus similarities they claim exist, you would think if it was true that the ancient texts showed such similarities, they would simply site these ancient texts. They don’t because they do not exist, Its quite simple, They instead offer books from authors such as Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Doherty. This is laughable as a resource list if you have looked in to these claims. It’s the equivalent as me referencing Glenn Beck to prove there is no 911 conspiracy. I know its hard to believe that Tsarion or Alan Watt have been quoting known disinfo in their dissemination of this idea, but look for yourself, The numerous claims made by this movie concerning Jesus’s many similarities are either true or false. Before I move on here are the links to various debunkings of the “Christ myth”

Here is a great look at the ridiculous claims of most of the authors on that list (how they get away with this stuff is beyond rational thought)
www.tektonics.org...
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
www.thedevineevidence.com...
I like the next site because no stone is left unturned in his search for more and more "Christ myths deities" to debunk, he has about 80 claims looked in to here:
kingdavid8.com...
Because this movie spent so much time claiming the similarities of hours and Jesus here is a specific debunking to show how clearly uninformed in mythology and how easily duped the makers of this film are in making this claim.
www.tektonics.org...
Now for Leedoms "Virishna" I wish there was more information to go on, but there is no such deity, at least in our earth's currently verifiable history. he apparently didn't bother with fact checking. Here is one account of the hunt for Virishna from an earlier source:
kingdavid8.com...

This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER.


Well - I thought your first link of so-called 'trmendous references' (Tektonics) and I quote from the first article on the first page you linked to:

'(The author is a historian based at one the world's leading universities. He specialises in and is currently developing a publication record on ancient and modern myth.)'

Hmmm...a mysterious 'historian' with no name, who teaches at an unamed university. Hardly very credible really...it's simply a christian web site set up to de-bunk the above mentioned move/book 'Zeitgeist'. Really guys, this is a non-starter for a thread.....next please..

J.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

jimbo999 said:
Well - I thought your first link of so-called 'trmendous references' (Tektonics) and I quote from the first article on the first page you linked to:

'(The author is a historian based at one the world's leading universities. He specialises in and is currently developing a publication record on ancient and modern myth.)'

Hmmm...a mysterious 'historian' with no name, who teaches at an unamed university. Hardly very credible really...it's simply a christian web site set up to de-bunk the above mentioned move/book 'Zeitgeist'. Really guys, this is a non-starter for a thread.....next please..


are you serious?
first, all the sites I list take the information from the early manuscripts only and even strictly, something Zeitgeist doesn't even claim to do, I dont know what your even saying really. It doesn't take a PHD to compare what is claimed with what was actually written. I see your shrugging of this topic and disregarding of it on such grounds to be a encouraging sign. no one has yet challenged this on any intelligent grounds, the "super moderator" Byrd said it best in a recent thread when he had to begrudgingly deny some of the ignorance that is running rampant with this issue (specifically the Horus similarities) read it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Scholars have and continue to argue about the similarities between Horus and Jesus, as far as I know no debunking has been done to refute all the claims. I agree their are inaccuracies in Zeitgeist but the similarities are still there, superficial or not. I think it's a great film.
I know little regarding christianity but I do know something of the dharmic religions and the similarities between the Krishna and Jesus stories a far more apparent. Any christians seriously seeking the truth should research this themselves.
Hindus and buddhists have never slaughtered anyone for their beliefs, while christianty has been the single most cause of death, war and intolerence the world has ever seen.
The more you look the less conviction the bible has, although not well versed on the subject I tend to agree with Jordan Maxwells interpretation that the bible is astrologicaly based. Yes that evil zodiac thing.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I don't really care about part one of the movie... I am not a religious zealot.

Are you also claiming that part 2 and 3 of the movie is lies?

I very much doubt it.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
actually hindu's and buddhists have slaughtered for their beliefs, albeit on a much, much smaller scale. Buddhists generally only fought back in self defence... But there is certainly some history of hindu's killing muslims etc...

Although from my own experience of India, hindu's are an amazingly tolerant and friendly people, as were the buddhists, muslims, sikhs and chiristians.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Anyone more than me who got toatally hooked on the Lincoln/JFK-connection? That was pretty massive...


Look for thysleves!

kingdavid8.com...

[edit on 10-7-2007 by Raud]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
KUDOS to the OP, thanks for pointing all this out, I have been trying to debunk the individual contentions on various trheads. Such as Jesus wasn't born on December 25th to no avail.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Really, nothing that the movie presented was anything new. It doesn't "shake my world" or change the beliefs I already had in place, one way or the other. I find it humorous that there is such an uproar over this movie.

Anyone who has spent any time in esoteric study has heard all of this before. Let's say that it is a fact that Christianity has such and such in common with ancient religions... Okay, is Christianity the only religion which this can be said about? Nope. If you look at all of the world's religions, there is a common link. They sprung from one source.

Now, as far as that disproving the existence of Christ, pfft, I really don't think so. Just because someone has a few things in common with some "mythological" figure that was before him does not imply that he didn't/doesn't exist.

Some of you are making much ado about nothing in my honest opinion, on both sides of the argument.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
never mind about disproving the existence of christ, how about the "signifigance" of christ, and the possibility that a person of his character and legacy is repacked in other religions and dating thousands of years back.

faith becomes blind when you can't see this.

[edit on 10-7-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
KUDOS to the OP, thanks for pointing all this out, I have been trying to debunk the individual contentions on various trheads. Such as Jesus wasn't born on December 25th to no avail.


Even though many say that "Jesus" wasn't born of December 25th the day is still celebrated by most Christians as his birthday.

So if in fact as is obvious it isn't his birthday it is still a day that has been set apart to be celebrated as such. I don't buy the argument that the Christians adapted to Pagan holidays in order to recruit followers, that just doesn't make sense to take one day of significance and wrap it in different paper and still celebrate it. It becomes more likely that something hidden is being celebrated as something else. Like the movie says.

I liked the movie alot. I learned some things from it. I don't buy into every thing that was said but nonetheless it was a good watch.






top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join