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.

 

Zeitgeist flaws

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The film Zeitgeist is spreading like a bushfire on the net these days. It presents many shocking "facts" that links the story of Jesus to earlier astrological myths etc. in order to "debunk" the whole Jesus story as myth and astrological patterns. Not only is most of the info presented false, but sometimes also quite amusing.

The film starts focusing on the mysteries of the zodiac and the traditional winter solstice, 25th of Dec. and claim that Horus and a bunch other mythical figures were born on this day, as well as Jesus (allthough most scholars say he was born in spring) and that one of the important aspects with this date is that Sirius aligns with Orion's belt (which it always does) and the sun at sunrise. In the next instance they start talking about vernal equinox and the passing of the astrological ages, and they start to explain how every 2000 something years the sun will rise in a new constellation on spring equinox. As you may know, spring equinox occurs one quarter of a year after winter solstice, so what would happen with the remarkable alignment of Orion and the sun? It would happen one month earlier for every age.

The film is a horrable mix of fact and fiction made to fit the idea that Jesus is a product of imagination.

I see referances to this film all over this website, but has anyone bothered to check if the information presented is valid?

First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman. Atleast that's what the prophecy said. And he was certainly not born at Dec. 25th and must have been born prior to 4BC when Herod died.

Secondly the bible says nowhere that there were three kings coming to greet Jesus. They are unnumbered in the bible and are refered to as Magi. A Babylonian word for astrologer. As for the Bethlehem star, they were not refering to a fixed object in the sky, but a moving object in the near vicinity of the sun. This fits with the retrograde motion of Venus when it passes between earth and the sun.

Thirdly: Jesus never used the title Christ, but the highly Jewish messianic title Son of Man from the Book of Enoch who shall judge in the endtime.

And there is much more....

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]




posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Your claims are good, but do you have any citations for these?
I watched Zeitgeist awhile ago and afterwards did check some of the more main points, not on religion though.

If you have supporting evidence and sources for any errors in the movie, please post them for all. Thanks much!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
It sounds like alternate Christianity.

It might not make a difference.

Each each version might be copyrighted, so you can't trespass.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman. Atleast that's what the prophecy said.
[edit on 3/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]


Not that I believe but I see reference here Bible gateway


29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."


here Life of Christ

Basically stated in the Gospels of Luke and Mathew But I think it depends of which version of the book you read like King James and Such


edit to take out a bold tag that was some how put in there

[edit on 4/3/2008 by EvilBat]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
For instance I have always learned that Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris, not of a virgin and that the sungod of Egypt was Ra. I also learned that Osiris was killed and ressurected, not Horus and thus it goes on and on. It's been a while since I read the Egyptian Book of the Dead now and the same goes with the epic of Gilgamesh and the other known writings of the area.

They present a mythical Rosetta stone, but instead of being intrigued by certain similarities in religions all over the world, they add flesh to the dry bones here and there and claim Jesus never happened since similar stories have been told before. Part of the whole point with Jesus is that he was the Word of God that had existed since the Word of God was God himself. The whole Jewish written and oral history witness about him in prophecies and traditions. Should we simply dismiss the accounts on Jesus for that reason? I would find that odd...



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I am sure that there are many flaws in Zeitgeist.
There are flaws in pretty much everything that is created by man.
Even religion.

And yes, there are many all too similar stories that pre-date the Christian messiah story.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilBat

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman. Atleast that's what the prophecy said.
[edit on 3/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]


Not that I believe but I see reference here Bible gateway


... 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"



Either she simply says she is unexperienced and wonders how to do it so to speak, something Gabriel says will go just fine. Or she simply asks if it is since she is a virgin she has to carry forth. Gabriel calms her down and promise her that he will be a son of God i.e. a rightious Jew (De 14:1 You are the children of LORD God.). She would soon be married to Joseph and Gabriel explains her duties as a wife. As simple as that. Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary and was a rightious Jew i.e. a son of God. The idea that the Father would have sex with one of his children is absurd. That's what it reads with the miraculous glasses on. God brought about the Flood because of milder sins...

And again, Mary spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and in referance to the birth of the Messiah the Jews would use the word Almah which simply means young woman.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman (almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   



First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman. Atleast that's what the prophecy said. And he was certainly not born at Dec. 25th and must have been born prior to 4BC when Herod died.


really, all my years of Catholic teachings were incorrect? So whats with all the "immaculate conception" "Born of the Virgin Mary" stuff?

I found the movie very enlightning, even being a Catholic and seeing this movie, it just re-instills my belief that there are a million holes in the religion. I dont think that the film was saying Jesus was actually born on the 25th, but in the teachings it does state his birth date as dec. 25th, and the film shows ALL the other religions have the SAME date as references, eluding to the fact that its nothing more than a story passed on through various cultures and religions which should tell you something about any particular god of any religion.

Its funny how people always argue that you cant take the bible word for word, but its rather interpretation or metaphoric representation, such as Adam and Eve, or everything being created in 7 days, yet shows like this gets you all riled up because it says a specific date, which actually is the date celebrated as the date for the birth of christ.
I think someone else brought up a ggod point in a different thread regarding Adam and Eve, if you take it literally as thay were the 2 first humans, wouldnt they have had to have sex with their children or their children have had to have sex with each other for humans to continue?




[edit on 3-4-2008 by ringing]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ringing



First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman. Atleast that's what the prophecy said. And he was certainly not born at Dec. 25th and must have been born prior to 4BC when Herod died.


really, all my years of Catholic teachings were incorrect? So whats with all the "immaculate conception" "Born of the Virgin Mary" stuff?


The catholic church is wrong about many things surrounding the birth and death of Christ. They moved his birthday a quarter of a year among other things. Just to please the emperor Constantin and his main god Sol Invictvs. They also moved passover, ignored scripture and had Jesus crucified on a Sabbath. Long Friday is part of the passover week and is a sabbath. John clearly states that the crucifiction happened on erev pessach, the day before passover, wednesday using the present system. This way he would be "dead" for three days and nights. This and much more.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


What you said was

"I see referances to this film all over this website, but has anyone bothered to check if the information presented is valid?

First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman."

You asked for reference I hand it to you about her being a virgin

I don't need to know what the words written mean
hence I said I dont believe it

Are you sticking up for the film or are you trying to show the flaws? cause what I have been reading is your proving the fact that, the movie is correct about JC.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The film says Jesus was the son of a virgin like many gods and mythical persons before him. I disagree... Where's your logics. Read my initial post and see the film...

And you don't need to know what the words of the bible means?

[edit on 4/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Ive read the post , saw the film when it came out ( passed on copies of it to friends )

My logics is
What you said was

"I see referances to this film all over this website, but has anyone bothered to check if the information presented is valid?

First of all. Jesus was not the son of a virgin, but of a young woman."

You asked for reference I hand it to you about her being a virgin


So your disagreeing that the bible mentions JC being born of a virgin then ?




where is the flaws in the movie if your arguing for the movie




[edit on 4/4/2008 by EvilBat]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I suppose it is not easy for a cristian to hear that there where many jezus figures.

Maybe the OP could point out why he thinks there where not that many jezus figures.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
another thread about this?

seriously, if you're going to talk about a subject, see if it's been brought up before and bump a thread that already has half of the responses you're going to get from the title.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilBat
So your disagreeing that the bible mentions JC being born of a virgin then ?

Yes, and that's controversial because...


where is the flaws in the movie if your arguing for the movie


How can I be arguing for the movie when I point out mistakes, like how the movie say Jesus was born from a virgin, and I say he was not. The bible is also flawed, we rely on Greek translations of an Aramaic source that has been lost. To reconstruct the Aramaic originally used one can look to the prophecies of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Greek NT uses the Greek Septuaginth OT for OT quotations and they differ from the Hebrew source, among other places here. The Hebrew simply say Young Woman, while the Septuaginth takes use of a word that means virgin, which is also continued throughout the Greek NT. I believe this is a mistranslation.

Seams to me you use Bush logics here like if I'm not fully backing the flawed bible I back Zeitgeist. However it's not so much that the bible is flawed, it's the church that has created dogmas uppon wheat the bible say. Like how the church say Jesus was born on 25th of Dec., how there were only three wise men and so on. This has been added to the story to fit Roman astrological myth stretching back to Egypt and Babylon.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

The catholic church is wrong about many things surrounding the birth and death of Christ. They moved his birthday a quarter of a year among other things. Just to please the emperor Constantin and his main god Sol Invictvs.


thank you, so your saying the catholic church as well as the religion is made up based on "stories" or events passed down through others and in fact is not correct in its teaching therefor making it a "false" religion? Thats sort of what the movie is saying, isnt it, that the "facts" as presented in religions are in fact not facts but interpretations or stories of what they want as a standard for their religion. This is the flaw with religions as the movie illustrates.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by ringing]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ringing
thank you, so your saying the catholic church as well as the religion is made up based on "stories" or events passed down through others and in fact is not correct in its teaching therefor making it a "false" religion? Thats sort of what the movie is saying, isnt it, that the "facts" as presented in religions are in fact not facts but interpretations or stories of what they want as a standard for their religion. This is the flaw with religions as the movie illustrates.


Religion has it's root in astrology and like I explained in the thread www.abovetopsecret.com... the story of the Zodiac repeats itself every 2000 something years. This is the reason for the similarities. You find the astronomical events described in epic stories where the constellations and the stars are showed or explained as deities and gods etc. From the wall art in Egypt to the rocks of Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylon, Media, Persia, Greece, Rome and even into this day. It's the same celestial events and it's the same astrological lore. This has never really been a great mystery. It has been known for thousands of years.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
then why dont religions just teach the true events instead of relating them to the stars.
Why change dates, why have fake grand stories, why have metaphors, why have any of it?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
We can thank the Roman Catholic Church and the Emperor/Pope and his senators/cardinals of the Curia of Rome for that. In order to replace the religion of Rome with Christianity, the church adapted the hethen astrological feasts and replaced the pantheon with saints. For instance the cross was seen as an abomination to the early Christian movement. They would mock the cross as we mock the swaztika. They observed Saturday Sabbath according to the Law of Moses and didn't celebrate winter solstice. However, they did use astrological symbols to symbolise Jesus. Among others the fish, which relates to the age of pisces and the gospel is full of astrological references, but it depicts a different astrology than the Mithra-Babylonian astrology adopted by Rome and the Catholic Church.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
but it doesnt appear that "just" the Roman Catholic Church does this, it appears nearly all religions do this, so wouldnt that be evidence enough that none of is truly real? just an ongoing story to make people feel they have to act in a certain manner do to a God, heaven hell and so on?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join