Take the Zeitgeist Challenge

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

ha, no punching! we're still friends.

As for the pagan copycat theory: I have studied various religious texts (not in their original languages, but somehow I doubt you read the bible in it's original language, or it's first revision either, so let's call a stalemate on that one right now). There are certainly more than just a few "generic correlations" as you call them. I would say a global flood, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. are more than generic correlations to be expected.

Jesus taken from astrology: What you call "distortion into pagan astrology" is misleading, as paganism predates Christianity - and Christian astrology makes use of the very same constellations and zodiac as the pagans the predated them.

Now, that being said - Christians as I understand are against astrology for the most part, and the bible would back them up:

Isaiah 47:13 – “All the counsel you have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They cannot even save themselves from the power of the flame. Here are no coals to warm anyone; here is no fire to sit by.” (NIV)

Evidence of a historical Jesus: Already covered this in the post above.

Thanks for the interesting thread Ashley. I wish you guys could just see this as a test of your faith as opposed to an attack on it. The defensive approach is what attracts the pugilists like me to the conversation.

There is no sense in fighting over this people, nor any reason to warrent "proof" for someone to back up something based on what they believe. Religion is one of the most touchy subjects you can get into a discussion about because of the fact that everyone is different...but I am sure you all know this.

Debate about this entire thread can be completely done in a civil manner. The OP was about finding factual evidience to support the movie...which seems like a very plausable request even if there were no money involved. People should be sufficiently educated enough about thier belief system before taking on discussions/debates about it with other people.

Personally, I liked the movie. Do I believe everything stated in it? No. But I have always been for questioning things you do not understand. I feel some people ran into problems with religion that I did because the people teaching were not capable of answering questions...I found for every unanswer I was provided, it was either because it's God's will, or the Bible says so. But this should not dissuade individuals from acquiring thier own knowledge and understanding of the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter.

One thing people should realize though is the bible is not just a book...I think it has been forgotten that it consists of several books, written at different times. This is why when something is referenced it isn't done as: "Bible, page 1346".

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.

Why accuse instead of listing sources? I don't think you really have reviewed Jordan Maxwell's stuff that much because if you had you would know he thinks highly of Jesus and the bible.

Here check it...video.google.com...

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Shawn B.]

Okay, for those of you who think Jordan Maxwell is so great, here is some food for thought.
michaelsheiser.com...

Click the link and scroll down to read "Syllabic Silliness with Jordan Maxwell", and you will see that he either has no concept of etymology or he completely ignors the facts in order to push his anti-christian agenda.

I will take the words of someone who actually has real credentials in the fields of ancient languages and ancient history over that of a fringe "researcher" any day.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by Lightmare]

Hey Scientist! Long time no see.

Originally posted by scientist
As for the pagan copycat theory: I have studied various religious texts (not in their original languages, but somehow I doubt you read the bible in it's original language, or it's first revision either, so let's call a stalemate on that one right now).

A quick note: You really don't need to read the original languages at the moment to do the research. Let's use an English translation of the Vedic writings as an example since it serves our purposes for the moment. If you read the texts in English, you will get a whole other story regarding Krishna- the story believed by Hindus- and not the claims that Zeitgeist makes about him. The same goes for the other figures. Let's say Zeitgeist claims Krishna had 12 disciples. But when you read the Vedic writings (in any language) it says no such thing and a Hindu can confirm it. Same goes for Buddha, Mithras, Zoroaster, and the other dozen or so figures Zeitgeist mentions.

It would be like you don't have to read the original Greek manuscripts to be a Christian who knows Jesus was a Jew from Israel who had 12 disciples, was crucified, etc. The basic story will be the same. So for this intent, translations don't matter too much except for maybe heated debate topics like the meaning of the word virgin.

There are certainly more than just a few "generic correlations" as you call them. I would say a global flood, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. are more than generic correlations to be expected.

First of all, I am glad you mention the global flood and the similar stories found all around the world. To me that is fascinating (however admittedly anecdotal) evidence that possibly shows a common origin. However, that is another debate and is not here nor there at the moment as the Hebrews believed in a world wide flood centuries before the time of Jesus. The world wide flood was not something that started with Jesus so it is irrelevant. I love the fact there are flood stories all over the world because it makes it seem, to me, something happened all that time ago but the tales later became distorted through time and geography. That is an argument that can go both ways though so at the moment I am just going to say the flood account is not really related to the life of Jesus or a strictly Christian belief.

I believe there are about two or three other virgin births mentioned in pagan myths. The others, like most pagan copycat accusers attempt to do is stretch it via word play. For instance, they will say a figure, Mithras for example, was born of a virgin. This is techincally true until we later find out Mithras was 'born' after emerging from solid stone. So can a rock have sex? No. Ta-da! A virgin birth. Others, Attis, for example, was born of a virgin after she was inseminated upon an acorn falling into her lap. But then Christ mythers add dishonesty into the mix by adding further non existent parallels into the mix that have nothing to do with Attis. Horus is another good example. In the Egyptian hyms, Horus was described as the son of Osiris, therefore 'the son of god.' So we have a loose albeit true correlation but CM's then state he had 12 disciples, was born of a virgin, was attended by shepherds at his birth, etc.- none of which is true. So, we can find a few correlations that I believe are based on probability but never a slam dunk check list like the CM's claim.

Jesus taken from astrology: What you call "distortion into pagan astrology" is misleading, as paganism predates Christianity - and Christian astrology makes use of the very same constellations and zodiac as the pagans the predated them.

Like the flood, your time lines are off. The Mazzaroth long precedes the life of Jesus and is a very ancient belief. In fact, it is so old it origins are shrouded in mystery because no one knows exactly how old it is. According to Hebrew tradition, it is older than Babylonian astrology even. How old is it truly? Well, nobody knows. So again, the fact pagan astrology predates the life of Jesus isn't entirely relevant because many believe the Mazzaroth is the legitimate original while pagan astrology is the counterfeit. Because nobody truly knows, this is a stalemate that most people are going to decide based on their preconceived biases.

Of course, I also didn't point out the flaws Zeitgeist makes in its videos regarding the astrology and Jesus' relation to the zodiac. It had some pretty bad errors that I mentioned in a thread a while back but didn't bother picking it apart in this thread because to me the issue of the Mazzaroth is more important. However, like above with the CM claims, Zeitgeist takes a little bit of fact and adds in a whole lot of fiction. They show a few things that relate to Jesus and astrology and fudge most of the rest. I believe the thread where I dissected the astrological claims of Zeitgeist is named something like 'The Sun of God.'

Now, that being said - Christians as I understand are against astrology for the most part, and the bible would back them up

Absolutely. Christianity is anti-astrology as it is defined in paganism. However, we also believe everything God does, Satan has a counterfeit. If the Mazzaroth is the true God-created original, as I believe, this is the holy original. We are also told the heavens declare God's glory and in Job, believed to be the oldest book of the Bible, we see the allusion to the Mazzaroth. So you are absolutely correct- Christians are not to partake in what we believe to be the counterfeit (astrology and fortune telling based on astrology) but some do believe God embedded his plan for salvation in His own creation.

Thanks for the interesting thread Ashley. I wish you guys could just see this as a test of your faith as opposed to an attack on it. The defensive approach is what attracts the pugilists like me to the conversation.

When was I defensive? Oh wait, I wasn't. Also, this isn't my thread but... you're welcome?

Please excuse me if I am too lazy to proof read any of this. It's long and I am tired.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by AshleyD]

This shall be interesting.

Too bad Jesus never Existed...

When you ask for proof from a scholar what qualifies as being qualified enough to get your attention? I have a 1st in Philosophy and Ethics from Oxford, A levels in Religious Studies, Philosophy and Ethics and History from a private school in Surrey named Caterham.

There are my credentials and yet I feel you'll still wave my comment away as it disagrees with you. The similarities between most modern religions is ridiculous however most don't go to the length of studying another cultures religion to find this out, therefore ignorance has festered itself into sheer denial on behalf of those devoted believers. It could be argued that Hinduism is different from most mainstream religions but Hinduism can be seen to have close ties with ancient religions (such as the Egyptian Gods). The same story does seem to be repeated of a saviour/hero/prophet/demi-god sacrificing themselves for the sake of many others. Jesus I believe is more unbelievable than some other characters from other religions. Under no other circumstance would people believe in a man who can heal by touching, magically turn water into wine and convienently multiply food when it was needed.
A lecturer of mine once said the focus of all religious text will be on a character who has supernatural powers, in a millenium or so our relatives will worship superman and read marvel comics in their holy houses.

Jesus is a fictional character in my eyes, however the stories told in the Bible should not be ignored simply because they are likely to be false. They are fables, stories that have moral. Children should be read them and be taught how to work out right from wrong. The Bible may be lies, but none of them are hurtful, it is the organisation (especially the Vatican and Al'Quaeda abusing and twisting the teachings Qu'ran) behind each religion and it's text that turn moral teachings into hate crimes and ignorance.

I hope this has atleast made you think a little more about religion and it's origins and purpose. I have no interest in the $200, converted into pound sterling thats next to nothing.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Wow! You aren't trying to make any friends at all are you? Can you post a source or preferably a couple supporting the "fact" that the Gospel is an accurate historical account? What's the saying, turn arounds fair play? The people that say $200 isn't worth it have a valid point and you my friend are being a jerk. I'm considering taking your challenge just to be able to tell you to take your $200 and stick it...

Originally posted by Lightmare
Okay, for those of you who think Jordan Maxwell is so great, here is some food for thought.
michaelsheiser.com...

He's saying Jordan Maxwell's wrong and then saying look the bible says it's this way...

his anti-christian agenda.

Jordan Maxwell doesn't have a anti-christain agenda though...lol

Check out the video that I linked and see for your self. Jordan Maxwell has a anti-secret agenda.

I will take the words of someone who actually has real credentials in the fields of ancient languages and ancient history over that of a fringe "researcher" any day.

I just looked through his website a little and didn't see where he says he has that cred. Can you please link it to where he says that?

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


You simply don't know your history.

Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following:

". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


Nice sucker punch you got in there.

I knew from the get-go that this thread would devolve into a mess. The fact is that Zeitgeist is not 100% correct, but it is also not 100% incorrect, so no matter what happens, it will never be resolved until somebody spends hours and hours going through every single detail in the movie and determining which statements are true and which aren't. I think that would be much more worthy of $200 than "prove me wrong".

Originally posted by AshleyD


Absolutely. Christianity is anti-astrology as it is defined in paganism. However, we also believe everything God does, Satan has a counterfeit. If the Mazzaroth is the true God-created original, as I believe, this is the holy original. We are also told the heavens declare God's glory and in Job, believed to be the oldest book of the Bible, we see the allusion to the Mazzaroth. So you are absolutely correct- Christians are not to partake in what we believe to be the counterfeit (astrology and fortune telling based on astrology) but some do believe God embedded his plan for salvation in His own creation.

Could you explain the differences between the Mazzaroth and astrology?

The meaning of the word Mazzaroth has been in contention for some hundreds of years as the scarce but adequate literature confirms. Traditional sources generally interpret the word as meaning constellation, though usually understood in the plural, constellations; where others agree it specifically refers to the zodiac and possibly the planet Venus.

en.wikipedia.org...


Seems like astrology and mazzaroth are the same and might prove the Mary and Venus connection since it was used to predict the coming of the messiah.





[edit on 8-8-2008 by Shawn B.]

Originally posted by Shawn B.
Could you explain the diffrences between the Mazzaroth and astrology?

To me, the easiest way would be to use an analogy.

According to Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Mazzaroth would be to astrology what Biblical prophecy is to psychic predictions. The Godly original versus the ungodly counterfeit. The Mazzaroth: God's plan for redemption embedded in His creation. Astrology: An aspect of paganism used to foretell the future, among other things.

Originally posted by AshleyD


To me, the easiest way would be to use an analogy.

According to Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Mazzaroth would be to astrology what Biblical prophecy is to psychic predictions. The Godly original versus the ungodly counterfeit. The Mazzaroth: God's plan for redemption embedded in His creation. Astrology: An aspect of paganism used to foretell the future, among other things.

So you're going on speculation, but don't know by comparing constellations and whatever to determine they're different then?

Well if God makes the future then they would be trying to see God's plan same as the Mazzaroth. Seems you're using double speak to show the differences.

reply to post by yourrolemodel

The challenge is impossible! After looking at the actual site one of the requirements is proving Jesus was born on December 25. Good luck. It's extremely difficult to find a real copy of his birth certificate (or Obama's if you listen to some posters here)! Jesus was probably born in April or May from what I have read. The church stole the December date to coincide with pagan festivals and make it easier to convert the heathens. So to the OP you win. There's no way to prove Jesus was born on December 25.

reply to post by Shawn B.


Not double speak or speculation. Simply, the easiest and most basic explanation possible to avoid getting involved in a long, drawn-out debate about all the differences between the two. I've explained the basic differences twice so I am not sure what else you are looking for other than have me describe all of the meanings of the constellations through the eyes of a Christian.

If you are truly interested, I strongly suggest the following book: The Gospel in the Stars. There are also many free articles about it on the internet that go further into depth than Wikipedia.

Pagan astrology, on the other hand, is equally as complicated. However, it is also more well known so you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever learning about it.

Then, compare.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Actually, the part about Christianity in zeitgeist is based off of the Astrotheology theory that Jordan Maxwell did lectures on.

video.google.com... operty-revision&cd=1#

Originally posted by AshleyD


Not double speak or speculation. Simply, the easiest and most basic explanation possible to avoid getting involved in a long, drawn-out debate about all the differences between the two. I've explained the basic differences twice so I am not sure what else you are looking for other than have me describe all of the meanings of the constellations through the eyes of a Christian.

you said...

The Mazzaroth: God's plan (Future) for redemption embedded in His creation. Astrology: An aspect of paganism used to foretell the future (God's plan), among other things.

God's Plan and the future are interchangeable. What you did if you know it or not was use doublespeak to downplay astrology in favor of the Mazzaroth.

If you are truly interested, I strongly suggest the following book: The Gospel in the Stars. There are also many free articles about it on the internet that go further into depth than Wikipedia.

Pagan astrology, on the other hand, is equally as complicated. However, it is also more well known so you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever learning about it.

Well you're acting like you know the differences so I thought you would know the exact that things made them that way. The book in that link seems to saying astrology and the Mazzaroth are the same judging by the summery. Do you have those links?




[edit on 9-8-2008 by Shawn B.]

reply to post by AshleyD


Astrology does not "predict the future", instead astrology merely calculates a cycle; and what effect that cycle may have on you.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Looks like it's UP to $250 now. I know - I know - more excuses -- " it's not worth opening a few books" - "it would take almost an hour of research" -- if the claims were true you could back it up in 15 minutes.

The real issue is --- It might dismantle your fantasy world existence as well. The bible is truly the word of God. Jesus was who he claimed to be - not who Zeitgeist says he was.

For me bible is science fiction - I red it few times and it is contradicting. I do not fear anything and I do not feel guilty for anything and do not need to be saved anyone. I am absolutely fine.

If you can bring in undeniable evidence that bible tells the truth and the evidence that Christian God exists (In fact any God will do - Islamic, Christian, HIndu, Voodoo...) I will give you 200$ myself.