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 Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

page: 11
78
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


There is absolutely nothing new in those videos. They are rehashes of everything that Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, etc have already claimed. These arguments are from within the insular Zeitgeist movement and try and assert the credibility of their sources, by sourcing other people in the Zeitgeist movement. The guy who made the video in my OP goes to NEUTRAL EXPERTS. Acharya S, Freke and Gandy, and Zeitgeist use forgeries and outright lies to push their philosophy and debase other people's religions.


So, you just watched about 4 hours worth of videos in like 5 minutes, ahh?
www.freethoughtnation.com...

You have absolutely no clue what the hell you're talking about. Name your "lie" or "forgery" and I will prove you wrong.

From the preface of the New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010):

"...This effort includes much new source material drawn from primary sources as well the works from credentialed authorities in a variety of relevant subjects. Indeed, I have strived to include the best and most thorough, scholarly and modern sources wherever possible, with the result that many authorities cited here possess credentials from respected institutes of higher learning, and their publishers are some of the most scholarly in English (and other languages), such as:

E.J. Brill
Peeters
Kegan Paul
Oxford University/Clarendon Press
Princeton University Press
Cambridge University Press
Cornell University Press
Yale University Press
University of Chicago Press
University of Pennsylvania Press
University of Wisconsin Press
Johns Hopkins Press
Harcourt, Brace & Co.
MacMillan & Co., etc.

This Sourcebook thus provides relevant primary-source material and citations from respectable and credentialed authorities, along with germane images to support the first part of ZG’s contentions. There are over 150 sources cited in this Sourcebook, in nearly 350 footnotes...."

- Acharya S, Preface for The ZEITGEIST Sourcebook Part 1: The Greatest Story Ever Told
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

* Those who really know what academia is will recognize the list above as the best of the best and most highly respected institutes of higher learning. Hand-waving dismissals will not suffice."
www.freethoughtnation.com...

edit on 17-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
Actually, I think you will find that Messiah is derived from the EGYPTIAN word MESSEH which means crocodile.

.. snip ..

Etymology is where it's at.


Yes, I suppose that, with the benefit of time travel, two English words that are vaguely similar, can be confused with each in the past. Everything that I find on this claim leads back to Bloodline of the Holy Grail, one of the historically inaccurate texts that Dan Brown used as a source.

Actual Hebrew word that we say is "Messiah" in English: משיח‎‎; transliterated as mashiah

All right, we've an "M", an "H" and an "S" in there, just like in the transliteration of whatever the Egyptian word for crocodile was. So, "messeh" means crocodile, and a barely similar word in Hebrew means saviour, ergo, the Jews stole the concept of Messiah from the Egyptians.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Somebody, anybody, prove the bible right. Prove it wasn't Rome's means of controlling an ever expanding empire that could no longer be controlled by force alone due to its enormity.

Prove Jesus was the son of the god.

I'm waiting.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You obviously didn't read very much because there were many early Christians quoted, not just Justin Martyr. The fact is that many early Christian writers made comments which directly support what Zeitgeist had to say about the origins of Christianity. These early Christians were not 'refuted' by the video you posted as they only dealt with a couple of Justin's comments, and dealt with them poorly (I find it ironic that modern Christians find themselves in the position of having to refute the words of early Christians. This itself should tell us something.)

The problem with all such discussions as this is that Christians are not openmindedly looking to deal with the facts but only to protect their cherished beliefs from the truth.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by dickyavalon
 



This thread is not actually about disproving Zeitgeist as the title misleadingly claims. It's about attempting to prove christianity. The claims of christianity are more ludicrous than anything zeitgeist could ever come up with. Remember that in the west Pauline christianity prevails....and Paul/Saul never met or even heard Jesus speak. In fact, those who did, his actual apostles, and his brother, James, had NOTHING to do with Paul - as Paul's claims became more and more ridiculous.

edit on 17-2-2011 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

No, you're taking us off topic yet again. I'm exposing the blatant lies in Zeitgeist. If you want to criticize the Bible, fine, do it in a thread where that is the topic, and don't post Zeitgeist BS, because it is patently false.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


lol and a youtube video as well , like anyone can do that..its like all ur resources come from wikipedia very lazy research but good for those that want to believe something diffent cause there are videos for and against all topics at least zietgeist was based off a scholar and her research over years not just some upset christian that didnt like to hear that what they believe in may not be true..would make me go on youtube to find a video that goes against it just for a slight piece of mind...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
"Zeitgeist - Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki

Reality - Krishna was the eighth child of Vasudeva and Devaki

Now, how was Krishna born of a virgin if he was the eighth child of a couple? Seven other virgin births?"

---------

Typical. People always get confused into thinking these were real historical people, they are not. They are mythological characters.

Was Krishna's Mother a Virgin?
www.freethoughtnation.com...

"Zeitgeist - Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected

Reality - In the myth, Horus never even died, he became one with Ra

How was he crucified, and then resurrected, if he never died? "

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

Same here too.

"Osiris is doubly resurrected as his son Horus, too, and he, too, is eventually raised from the dead by Isis. He is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern. As such, he seems to represent the common Platonic astronomical symbol of the sun s path crossing the earths ecliptic...."

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You obviously didn't read very much because there were many early Christians quoted, not just Justin Martyr. The fact is that many early Christian writers made comments which directly support what Zeitgeist had to say about the origins of Christianity. These early Christians were not 'refuted' by the video you posted as they only dealt with a couple of Justin's comments, and dealt with them poorly (I find it ironic that modern Christians find themselves in the position of having to refute the words of early Christians. This itself should tell us something.)

The problem with all such discussions as this is that Christians are not openmindedly looking to deal with the facts but only to protect their cherished beliefs from the truth.

I couldn't read much, because most of the links were broken. The video I posted doesn't even deny these similarities, but it points out that they post-date Christianity, and as Justin Martyr suggests, is plagarism on their part.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
How do I post a youtube video with the "VID:YOUTUBE" button above?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6,83)

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth"

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 84



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Goal Shack
 





However, we can't ban speech on these ideas at ATS (not sure if you're joking), especially since ATS isn't determining our future. When active debate on the subject is brought up by these posts, it's easier to defend against it, that is if the new world order truly wishes to carry out the VP. Plus it goes against our basic ideologies here.


I meant to elaborate some more on that... but i thought the point was made that it was a kind of hoax because It was trying to teach something while working for the same NWO idea... which it says it was against.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I think this sums it up perfectly for me!!




edit on 17-2-2011 by kcfusion because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by kcfusion because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by kcfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Robert Price is very anti-christian and therfor has an axe to grind against Christianity. He is also a member of the immensely liberal Jesus Seminar which has very little credibility. Look at their wikipedia page, half of the page is devoted to criticism: en.wikipedia.org...

He also ascribes to the belief that Ya'hshuah was plagarised from the story of Dionysus. This is addressed and thoroughly debunked in the video I posted.

At least you are on topic.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Any of the material in the Zeitgeist bibliography linked to Jordan Maxwell should be taken as fact, or at least true until proven otherwise. Anyone can do their own little mickey-mouse research and google searches about this historical topic or that, But unless you have fifty years of hands-on worldwide research in it as he does, you'll never have anything on him.

"Any time you think you've got it all figured out, you don't have any of it".
-J. Maxwell



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Go to the share button at the bottom of the video, copy, and paste the numbers after the = sign



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Have you ever been to Egypt? If you have you would realise that when I say that the Biblical teachings are largely plagiarised that can hardly be denied. The evidence is on almost every wall of almost every temple. Geographically they are neighbours....you think the great civilization of Egypt had NO input? That's just naive. The hebrews married into the pharaohnic lineage....more proveable that 'son of god' claims. (Even by the OT and the Joseph tales)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
This Sourcebook thus provides relevant primary-source material and citations from respectable and credentialed authorities, along with germane images to support the first part of ZG’s contentions. There are over 150 sources cited in this Sourcebook, in nearly 350 footnotes...."


All right, I have slogged through 16 pages of that, thank you for the reference (I don't watch videos, as a general rule -- I prefer to read.)

Here's the problem, though. At least in these first 16 pages, and maybe it changes, but I'm not going to bother reading any more, there are plenty of sources, varied and seemingly scholarly, but none of them have anything to do with the "Christ conspiracy" that Zeitgeist purports to reveal. Instead, all of that is bound up in comments from our friend D. M. Murdock who, as has been pointed out by myself and others, is not a scholar and relies on demonstrably false sources for her conclusions.

Thus, we have a legitimate scholarly source discussing some aspect of Egyptology, followed by Murdock, who brings in the conspiracy piece. But credibility by association doesn't work. Claiming that "Oxford University Press" is the source of a lot of your information is of no value if all the crazy stuff comes from some place else.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
Was Krishna's Mother a Virgin?
www.freethoughtnation.com...


So, you point to a site run by D.M. Murdock as factual evidence for the claims that are based on Murdock's claims? Colour me surprised that she agrees with herself.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


I think you missed the irony



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You obviously didn't read very much because there were many early Christians quoted, not just Justin Martyr. The fact is that many early Christian writers made comments which directly support what Zeitgeist had to say about the origins of Christianity. These early Christians were not 'refuted' by the video you posted as they only dealt with a couple of Justin's comments, and dealt with them poorly (I find it ironic that modern Christians find themselves in the position of having to refute the words of early Christians. This itself should tell us something.)

The problem with all such discussions as this is that Christians are not openmindedly looking to deal with the facts but only to protect their cherished beliefs from the truth.


knowing as we both do that there was a schism about gnostic and pauline doctrines.
Can you do me a favor and tell me which of these "church fathers" fall in which camp?
You can save me some time since you are more aware from looking into them to that depth to know.
I do not know and you will help me to discern wisely.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join