It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amenti
I will count you as one who doesn't care about the factual errors in this movie.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by KINGOFPAIN
you cant use the bible to prove the bible
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.
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.
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..
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.