Take the Zeitgeist Challenge

Originally posted by Alora


If that is true, then why not take all of the information you have that lead you to the conclusion that Jesus' existence is "Absolutely proven beyond a reasonable doubt." and collect the $200 yourself? Or just bring in your "colloborating [sic] data from other sources" and get the cash?

Because no one is offering money for that. Why would they? It is just a matter of historical record.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by justamomma

 

Ridiculous... I have every right and even a moral obligation to expose frauds and charlatans. Jesus went into the temple and violently overturned the tables of the con men... All I'm doing is challenging you for evidence. I do find it amusing that you think I have no right to use satire or refute lies because I am a Christian. You are really threatened by the idea it is true aren't you.

Who was Jesus rebuking when he went into the temple?? It wasn't everyday normal folks, those that you probably would laugh at as they are cast into hell...... it was ppl like you. Pious, self righteous hypocrites. PPL that used the normal folks who just wanted to live a good life... the ppl that used "sinners", degraded them, and mocked them.

I think you need to go to your room and beg for forgiveness from your saviour for using his name as a catalyst for your self righteous behaviour otherwise you might find yourself next to me in my handbasket (which is fully loaded w/ all the comforts you would probably deem reprobate).

I haven't read what anyone else here has said.

The fact is, it doesn't have to be proven if it makes better sense than anything anyone else has EVER said or anything else that has EVER been written.

Until someone else comes up with something that makes more sense, I'll believe it. Plain and simple.

The Bible has NEVER made sense until now.

EDIT: Besides...$200 dollars (?)...maybe if you were offering Euro's or Pounds someone would take this seriously.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by lagnar]

I'm not going back and forth with the whiners anymore. When you make your submission to the Zeitgeist challenge site post it here and you'll be a big hero when you collect your $250.

Until then your just whining. If the claims were true it would be simple to back it up - just go to the religious text in question and read the story. The claims about Horus in that movie are NOT the actual story in the Egyptian text - they were manufactured to sound similar to Jesus by anti Christian bigots.

Whether your a Christian or not do you have to defend lies - to support your world view?

Why defend bogus scholarship? Why is that a good thing?

There's a word for it... Ignorance

DENY IGNORANCE

But why not destroy someones pure message by associating his life and legacy with a bunch of other unassociated non-sense.. I for one believe there is far more behind our existence than what we're told.. after reading the Gnostic Scriptures I have understood Jesus/Christ to be something far beyond basic understanding.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by PuRe EnErGy]

Talk about picking at strings. Right on dude.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


OOOh!! just one more question from one of the "whiners" please. If someone can prove this to be true, would you renounce your faith in jesus?? I will take that over the $250!!

i liked the Zeitgeist very much, but I also recognized it as being for the most part a poorly thrown together mix of other people's work.

Like I said, I enjoyed it, and have talked to many people that enjoyed it. I still see it as a "Conspiracy for Dummies" video, in that it doesn't go very much into depth on many things - which is also the reason it is so approachable to other people.

Personally, I couldn't be more delighted to come across 4, 5, 6 hour lectures of Jordan Maxwell - but for most other people I know, they are bored within the first 15-20 minutes. Not so with Zeitgeist, because it jumps around so much - again, both a pro and a con.

edit: LOL! after going to the site, I realized it's just a group of bible thumpers trying to keep hold of their dwindling faith.

All you have to do is take the various claims (that I will list below) concerning the similarities of Christ and other ancient gods that Zeitgeist makes, match them up to the text where it is claimed, and provide the specific quote and/or a link to the source, for example:

A good portion of that work was covered by Jordan Maxwell, but the absolute authority on the topic would have to be Joseph Campbell (r.i.p.)

The hero with a thousand faces is a great start. He was far from a conspiracy theorist, or an anti-christian. He was simply tolerant, understanding, and could fully understand the concept of a myth.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by scientist]

reply to post by scientist


Jordan Maxwell has been exposed as a fraud. He's not taken seriously by any legitimate scholars.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'm not going back and forth with the whiners anymore. When you make your submission to the Zeitgeist challenge site post it here and you'll be a big hero when you collect your $250.

Until then your just whining. If the claims were true it would be simple to back it up - just go to the religious text in question and read the story. The claims about Horus in that movie are NOT the actual story in the Egyptian text - they were manufactured to sound similar to Jesus by anti Christian bigots.

Whether your a Christian or not do you have to defend lies - to support your world view?

Why defend bogus scholarship? Why is that a good thing?

There's a word for it... Ignorance

DENY IGNORANCE

edited: deleted what I originally said after determining it was just fuel to the fire.



[edit on 8-8-2008 by Alora]

reply to post by justamomma


Wow you're debate skills are pathetic. You haven't made a post on topic yet. Just ad hominem fallacies - post after post.

Your whole argument is I am a bad Christian for challenging people that spread lies about it. I am a bad Christian if make a satirical remark -- whatever.
Your opinion about me is irrelevant.

You have no evidence just personal attacks which shows you have no evidence or logical points. Exactly like Zeitgeist -- hmmm that figures. :shk:

Originally posted by AloraWhiners, eh? Jesus would be so proud that one of his followers resorted to name-calling. After all, wasn't that one of his central messages?

I doubt we will be getting much anymore from the OP.... and here I was ready to list all the proof that I have been collecting on the validity of the video since I watched it. Don't even need the money, just the promise that the OP would renounce his faith in Jesus when I lay out very clearly my proof that the Zeitgeist movie was based in facts.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by scientist

 

Jordan Maxwell has been exposed as a fraud. He's not taken seriously by any legitimate scholars.

Name some of these legitimate scholars, and then list the people that are taken seriously by aforementioned scholars.

And let's abandon Jordan Maxwell right now. Are you also going to launch an attack on the work of Joseph Campbell? I would be very interested in your approach to his work.

Here I will get you started with some anti-Campbell work from Christians:

answers.org...

you also said this:

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Alora

 

Absolutely proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No serious historian denies it. The Gospel account by Luke has been established as one of the most accurate historical documents period for that time period. Due to colloborating data from other sources etc.

Now let me quote someone that previously said "put up or shut up."

"No serious historian denies it. The Gospel account by Luke has been established as one of the most accurate historical documents period for that time period."

"No serious historian denies it."

That needed repeating, and to be broken down for emphasis. You are making such an outrageous claim right now, that it's impossible for anyone other than someone in your own thinktank to take you seriously.

The gospel of luke includes resurrection and ascension. Are you telling me that all "serious" historians believe in both resurrection and ascension?

Do you only consider Christians as "serious?"

[edit on 8-8-2008 by scientist]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I'm not going back and forth with the whiners anymore.

Ephesians 4:25 "Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another."

Didn't you say you weren't going back and forth with those of us you labeled "whiners"?

This is a stupid challenge and only goes to show that you are insecure in your beliefs. What is the point?? Do you need the validation that jesus was real or what?

I am denying ignorance. This thread is ignorant. You have less proof of what you believe than those who believe that the legend of jesus is no more real than the legend of st. nick (aka Santa Claus).





[edit on 8-8-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by AloraWhiners, eh? Jesus would be so proud that one of his followers resorted to name-calling. After all, wasn't that one of his central messages?

I doubt we will be getting much anymore from the OP.... and here I was ready to list all the proof that I have been collecting on the validity of the video since I watched it. Don't even need the money, just the promise that the OP would renounce his faith in Jesus when I lay out very clearly my proof that the Zeitgeist movie was based in facts.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by justamomma]

Well, the OP isn't the only person reading this thread and I would love to read what you've got. I can't pay, or renounce my faith since it doesn't exist. All I can offer is my appreciation. (lousy, I know, but it's all I've got).

Jordan Maxwell's information is all wrong because he apparently does not understand the basics of etymology. There lies the erroneous nature of most of his "research".

The producers of Zeitgeist apparently thought nobody would actually research their claims to expose them as false. Guess the joke is on them.
...Or maybe not, considering how many people apparently WANT to believe in these erroneous claims.

Zeitgeist.
If you actually believe Zeitgeist, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell you for a hundred bucks. U2U me for the details.

Originally posted by Lightmare
Jordan Maxwell's information is all wrong because he apparently does not understand the basics of etymology. There lies the erroneous nature of most of his "research".

The producers of Zeitgeist apparently thought nobody would actually research their claims to expose them as false. Guess the joke is on them.
...Or maybe not, considering how many people apparently WANT to believe in these erroneous claims.

Zeitgeist.

If you actually believe Zeitgeist, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell you for a hundred bucks. U2U me for the details.

Does this mean you will be offering up proof of your claims and collecting the money? Or was that all you had to offer?

Ok, I am not going to get into any of the punching going on in this thread but here are three quick points:

As for the pagan copycat theory: It has proven to be bogus with the parallels mentioned in the video as well as their inspirational works and sources. Don't read a source of a source of a source. Rather, study the original religious texts and other records of the figures in question and 99% of the alleged similarities go up in smoke, with only a remaining few generic correlations that would be expected due to probability.

Jesus taken from astrology: Not quite but not exactly a solid 'No' Either. Without having to go into depth, I wholeheartedly believe the Hebrew Mazzaroth is the real deal and the original before the subsequent distortion into pagan astrology. So it would not surprise me at all to see 'The Gospel in the Stars' (which has actually been made into a book). Good, albeit controversial, stuff. To me, that is a testament for- not an argument against.

Evidence of a historical Jesus: Yes, there actually is first and second century evidence of a historical Jesus outside of the Christian Bible and there is a thread about it here where I participated heavily.

Hope that helps clarify a few things without me having to get into a heavy debate. Have fun, everyone. I encourage everyone to do their own research.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by AshleyD]

To Scientist:

Maxwell is a walking canard fest. I've seen one his videos he spreads the same lies about Horus & Jesus - as Zeitgeist. He's a fraud.

Point taken on Luke. My point on that was the denial of Jesus very existence that someone made. Sure I guess are many "serious" liberal scholars that deny the resurrection and ascension.But they dont say he never lived as was asserted. Luke is known as extremely accurate as a historical reference due to the details that have been corroborated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The topic is the Zeitgeist challenge. So just scan your check and post when you win. Or put you little heads back in the sand and pretend God isn't watching every move you make.

He is.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
To Scientist:

Maxwell is a walking canard fest. I've seen one his videos he spreads the same lies about Horus & Jesus - as Zeitgeist. He's a fraud.

perhaps you missed part of my last post, which is odd, since you seem to be addressing me specifically in regards to it. Let me quote myself:

let's abandon Jordan Maxwell right now. Are you also going to launch an attack on the work of Joseph Campbell? I would be very interested in your approach to his work.

Although Joseph Campbell is not associated so much with conspiracy, he has also done lots of work in regards to the similarities of the myth of Christ and other myths.

As for historical record of an actual person called Christ, there are several that I am aware of. What I am NOT aware of is any historical evidence of supernatural claims, miracles, etc.

Originally posted by BigwhammySure I guess are many "serious" liberal scholars that deny the resurrection and ascension.But they dont say he never lived as was asserted.

yes, but I doubt that's out of faith, but rather because serious historians deal with history, and the history of religion, not the validity of the claims made by them (with the exception of theologians).

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Luke is known as extremely accurate as a historical reference due to the details that have been corroborated.

Didn't you just say "point taken on Luke?" Luke also mentions angels. Are you claiming that is historically accurate as well? Please point me in the direction of other historians that claim angels, resurrection and ascension. Why are we backtracking now? I thought we were making progress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The topic is the Zeitgeist challenge. So just scan your check and post when you win. Or put you little heads back in the sand and pretend God isn't watching every move you make.

He is.

And as I already said, Joseph Campbell has done this work for you, free of charge. Are you prepared to dispute his work as well, which the Zeitgeist was also based upon?

You can look for his 6 part series of interviews with Bill Moyer called "Power of Myth" here:

video.google.com...

in fact, here's a transcript from part of the interview about Christianity:

brainstorm-services.com...

MOYERS: Aren’t you undermining one of the great traditional doctrines of the classic Christian faith – that the burial and the resurrection of Jesus prefigures our own?

CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation.

MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality.

CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are.

Shakespeare said that art is a mirror held up to nature. And that’s what it is. The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image.

The inner world is the world of your requirements and your energies and your structure and your possibilities that meets the outer world. And the outer world is the field of your incarnation. That’s where you are. You’ve got to keep both going. As Novalis said, "The seat of the soul is there where the inner and outer worlds meet."

MOYERS: In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come. But you say that if you affirm that which you deplore, you are affirming the very world which is our eternity at the moment.

CAMPBELL: Yes, that is what I’m saying, Eternity isn’t some later time. Eternity isn’t even a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now that all thinking in temporal terms cuts off. And if you don’t get it here, you won’t get it anywhere. The problem with heaven is that you will be having such a good time there, you won’t even think of eternity. You’ll just have this unending delight in the beatific vision of God. But the experience of eternity right here and now, in all things, whether thought of as good or as evil, is the function of life.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by scientist]