Take the Zeitgeist Challenge

Originally posted by undo
i think the term "pagan" needs to be more carefully defined. it's been a catch all term that was historically applied hy the RCC to those that disagreed with their "only one god" theories, which have no historical basis in fact. the truth is, from what my research seems to indicate, somewhere inbetween.

zeitgeist bases alot of its ideas on the research of acharya s., who takes the easy way out by claiming that ANY similarity is evidence of familarity. because your neighbor mows his yard, same as you, doesn't mean you know each other or worship lawn mowers.

That's precisely what a pagan is, one who believes in many Gods. Logic tells us that there can only be one God. There can only be one creator.

An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God wouldn't create another. Nor could He create another that would be eternal as He i(s). The "Gods" he would have to have created would then have a "start date", they wouldn't be eternal.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


check this out by Michael S. Heiser, phD, and scholar of the biblical languages. he explains the original meanings of the words and the context they are stated in, in the original languages, as regards the idea of "God and the gods."
www.thedivinecouncil.com...
www.thedivinecouncil.com...
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

more of his data.
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

based on the data in heiser's research (see above), which i tend to agree with, it's clearly obvious that the issue is an order of magnitude and focal point. it isn't as cut and dry as assumed. you can't say -- well joe over there believes other "gods" exist besides Jehovah so apparently, he's a pagan. that's incorrect thinking. believing the other gods exist or existed, does not assume you worship those gods. big difference.


[edit on 10-8-2008 by undo]

reply to post by re22666


No, I'm not wrong. And what you claim I have assumed is actually an observation, not an assumption. An observation of your many posts basically saying the same thing over and over and over again. An observation of you using circular logic instead of dispaying any kind of real knowledge of how textual criticism works.

You see, your logic could still be applied to ANY historical source that has been "verified" by other historians or has what you refer to as "supporting histories from many other sources". Keep in mind that such sources are not immune to being altered if something gets lost in translation or changed by someone with an axe to grind.

So by your logic, we should consider pretty much ALL history to be either mistranslated, or intentionally altered by a scribe with an agenda.

Originally posted by Lightmare
reply to post by re22666

 

No, I'm not wrong. And what you claim I have assumed is actually an observation, not an assumption. An observation of your many posts basically saying the same thing over and over and over again. An observation of you using circular logic instead of dispaying any kind of real knowledge of how textual criticism works.

You see, your logic could still be applied to ANY historical source that has been "verified" by other historians or has what you refer to as "supporting histories from many other sources". Keep in mind that such sources are not immune to being altered if something gets lost in translation or changed by someone with an axe to grind.

So by your logic, we should consider pretty much ALL history to be either mistranslated, or intentionally altered by a scribe with an agenda.

i guess you miss the point entirely where i made it clear that i was talking about the bible. something that cannot be independantly verified by ANY other source. something that has to be trusted solely on its own face value and nothing else. if you have been reading my posts you would see how many ways i have explained that. how i have explained the reason the bible itself is no better than any other book of fairy tales because it is the ONLY account of itselt isnt it? history is not the same. tell me that everyone believes george washington was president #1 and all that jazz because of one story passed down and translated and edited over thousands of years. or is it that there are many sources that verify or corroborate each other. the bible stands alone. i would not expect you to see what i a m saying, your mind is made up and that is fine. mine is not. but you will have to do better than the bible to convince me. i cannot believe you do no see the difference between a heavily debated account of heavily debated events and history that was recorded by everyone witha pen.

reply to post by re22666



Wrong again.

The stories in the Old Testament are closely paralelled in the Sumerian writings. Some scholars have even found a few paralells in the Egyptian writings. The flood story in particular has been told even in tribal beliefs such as the ancient Mayan and Hopi indians. The perpectives, of course, are very different, but the actual events appear to be the same.

As far as the New Testament goes, there will be very little. Mainly because the events were concentrated to a small area and small portion of time. The Roman scribes of Jesus' day would certainly have had more important things to do than record the rise of what they most likely saw as a fringe Jewish teacher and the rise of his what they probalby considered to be his cult.
Also don't forget that many records would have been destroyed at the fall of the empire.

That said, there are some external sources with which parts of the New Testament can be verified. The writings of Cornelius Tacticus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Thallus, and the Babylonian Talmud, all contain passages that mention events surrounding the life and ministry of Jesus.

Does that prove Biblical theology to be one hundred percent correct? No, it does not. But it DOES prove that Bible is NOT as historically incorrect as you and others like you apparently want it to be.

The Zeigeist movie, on the other hand, makes some pretty bold claims that CANNOT be backed up by ANY of the ancient historical or religious texts. Look all you want. But none of it is there to be found. NONE!!!

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

check this out by Michael S. Heiser, phD, and scholar of the biblical languages. he explains the original meanings of the words and the context they are stated in, in the original languages, as regards the idea of "God and the gods."
www.thedivinecouncil.com...
www.thedivinecouncil.com...
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

more of his data.
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

Okay, so what if some Israelites believed in more than one God? Do you remember they were enslaved by Egyptians for 400 years?

Isaiah 44:8: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God: I know not any."

In that Godhead, as Jesus clearly and repeatedly taught, God the Father hold ultimate power and control of earthly events. Jesus Christ serves as his executive to carry out his instructions and divine will. This relationship was clearly and repeatedly taught by the Savior during his mortal ministry (see Jn. 4:34; 5:17-20, 22-27, 30-36; 6:29, 38-40, 44, 57, 65; 7:16-18, 28-29; 8:16-18, 26-29, 38, 41-42, 54-55; 10:14-18, 25-38; 11:4, 41-42; 12:26-28, 44-50; 13:3, 14:1-21, 26, 28-31; 15:10, 16, 23-27; 16:2-16, 23-24, 27-32; 17:1-26; 20:17, 21, 31). The relationship was succinctly summarized by John the Baptist, who testified that "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (Jn. 3:35).

There are dozens of passages in the Bible that teach that there are many Gods. These passages call for discernment to differentiate them from other passages which make reference to the false gods of the pagan religions which existed in Bible times.

www.lightplanet.com...

Like I claimed earlier, the idea that there are many Gods flies in the face of logic. No onmipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God would create others. If He did then they wouldn't be an eternal God, they would be a creation.

reply to post by re22666

My friend, there are scores of seular accounts of Jesus, there are scores of secular accounts of miracles. One in perticular is a source that states there was in fact darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus even though astrology showed there wasn't supposed to be one.

What happens then is humans come along after that and then discredit those secular accounts.

"Proof" is relative my friend, if a person doesn't want to believe something he never will no matter how much evidence there is.

Horus was NOT a living being, so it seems this Zeitgeist Challenge is a moot point. The documentary was trying and did make the point of how man is creator and destroyer of this world we live on.
You take one small point of the movie, misinterpret what he is saying and ignore and assume the rest of the movie is crap and not worth your time because you KNOW your Christ is the way and the only way. Correct? If so, then there is proof enough for me that the brainwashing of the christian faith has done it's job well in closing your mind to other ideas.

So you must have missed the message that the leaders of the world have historically ruled the people with FEAR. From prehistory up to this day, through politics and religion. The lust for power and money, which goes hand in hand, seeps into a persons mindset that they are better and know better
than you do. You can and will be controlled by whatever means possible.

The age old concept of heaven and hell. Live a controlled life and you'll walk on streets of gold, but
if you don't you'll be cast into a lake of fire ...FOREVER.

Free speech and freedom of any religion is still the rule. This movie is a gift of hard work and facts.

reply to post by re22666


Oh looky what we have here, the little devil worshipper satanist playing devils advocate while his whole reason for being and most of his moronic threads wouldn't have a reason without the Bible making Satan famous in the first place. Now we see you again raining on someones parade as usual

reply to post by merky


Zeitgeist is a mish-mash of half-truths, shoddy research, and bold-faced lies. That makes it a classic peice of disinformation. Especially what it has to say about NWO.

For those who are ignorant to this inconvenient little fact, let me enlighten you. The oldest source of information regarding the NWO is Biblical eschatology. If not for the prophecies of the Bible which predicted the rise of the NWO, nobody else would have ever even known about it. Again, the first and oldest predictions of the rise of the NWO are from BIBLICAL PROPHECIES.

In a round about way, it seems like the movie Zeigeist takes the modern evidence for the rise of the NWO and then tries to blame it on the very religion whose prophecies have been warning us about it for well over two thousand years now.

Its like blaming the fire on the person who called 911. And it makes me very suspicious of the motives of those involved with making the movie. And equally suspicious of those who are hell-bent on believing in such false teachings.

[edit on 8/10/2008 by Lightmare]

reply to post by Lightmare


That's an excellent point and I remember you talking about it in another thread.

For anyone who is interested in what Lightmare is saying, I suggest checking out this thread:

Zeitgeist The Movie Helps the New World Order.

It was a pretty interesting discussion.

reply to post by AshleyD


Yep. I've been saying it for a while now. And I'm gonna keep on saying it until people get the meaning. To believe Zeitgeist is to embrace ignorance rather than deny it.

What shocks me is how many people seem to really WANT to believe in what Zeitgeist says. It just goes to show that most people don't really want the truth. Their ears are itching for "teachers" who will tell them what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is true or not. They would rather believe a lie that caters to their own prejudices and misconceptions. Unbelievable.

reply to post by Lightmare
Dude, did you not see any of my posts? I HAVE SOME PROOF! With regards to the claims that Standard Oil supported the Nazi war machine. AGAIN, I HAVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE of this... hello hello hello, anyone there? I want my 200 bucks in gold BTW.

reply to post by Lightmare


Absolutely! The bible is the original and authoritative source of information warning about the NWO - everything else is derivative. Movies like zeitgeist are a deversion to make NWO conspiracy theorists look like nut jobs who believe anything and to divert you from the real source of truth on the subject.

The technology the Bible spoke of to control all buying and selling (ID chips) and for the whole world to see the abomination of desolation ( television) - wasn't even a dream back when it was prophecied in Revelation. Now all the technology is in place. As predicted 2000 years ago.

The Bible has proven it's worth by precisely and accurately predicting the future repeatedly. Something no other religious text even attempts.

Hmmm... Have been thinking about this whole "the bible was the first to call out the NWO." A thought hit me that many corrupt leaders such as hitler, alot of modern day presidents, etc have claimed Christianity.

Makes me wonder if the intent for the NWO came about and the prophecies were written (because remember the bible was kept in the hands of the elite before it was put into the hands of the common man) and an imaginary rescue for those who believe in jesus was created to keep ppl from TRULY fighting such a plan.

There will always be smart ppl to figure out a plan of control by a select few......... so admit the plan, convince the ppl of an imaginary rescue, by the time they figure out the rescue was a made up it'll be too late.

I am only saying this bc I can't get past the fact that some of the most controlling and horrible leaders in the recent past and present have been "christian."

Repent and he will rescue you, right? How sure are you of that?

[edit on 10-8-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by justamomma

I am only saying this bc I can't get past the fact that some of the most controlling and horrible leaders in the recent past and present have been "christian."

More Zeitgeist level scholarship. The most "controlling and horrible leaders" are inarguably Mao with 60 million murders, Stalin with over 20 million murders BOTH atheists.

Hitler would be third and he was not a Christian or an atheist per se. Hitler was into the occult. He practiced Theosophy. This is forbidden in Biblical Christianity. He hated Christians. There were plenty of Christian in the dath camps with the Jews. He used the Catholic church as a propaganda tool on the German people.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

answers.org...

deny ignorance

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by re22666

 

Yeah and don't forget to add that Mark, Matt, Luke, and John were written 300 years AFTER the supposed crucifixion. So either these guys lived longer than we can imagine, OR, someone else wrote them.

Oooops more zeitgeist level scholarship...


This is even from an ATHEIST website :

ecause of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.
atheism.about.com...

deny ignorance

People were burning other people alive...because they thought they were "Witches".....Not even 200 years ago......What other stupid storys do you thing humans can come up with???....Ya right!!!.....If "Jesus" Did rise from the grave....He would be the first man in space....LOLZ.......I belive in God....But there never was a Jesus Christ......only a story book tale....a form of entertainment...Because there was no television at that time. They still have magic shows today.....but I guess you think thats all real too.


Shazza!!!!!!

reply to post by Bigwhammy


well, I didn't say they WERE christians, but neither are some of the ppl on here that are claiming to be christians. You will know them by their fruits .

What I said was that they CLAIMED to be christians. I agree, Hitler was hardly a christian. Still, it would make sense to me that the bible would be used as propaganda to keep ppl waiting rather than acting. Merely a theory and nothing that I am buying conclusively; just thought I'd throw it out there in light of what you and others have said about the NWO being brought up first in the bible (and considering that it was those in the power that kept access to the books of the bible from the commoners).

Again, just a thought....... Jesus and God don't discourage thinking, do they?