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

reply to post by kallisti36


Sigh, these 'similarities' dont post date Christianity and he wasn't accusing them of copying Christianity.

But you couldn't care less what Justin Martyr or any other church father really said do you? You'll just latch onto whatever apologist says without checking, as long as you like the sound of it.

So whats the point?

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
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

False! There are numerous, unflattering references to Ya'hshuah in the Talmud. en.wikipedia.org...

Besides, there is no proof to the claims that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius were forgeries. Especially since Suetonius puts Christ on the same level as Socrates, referring to him as the "crucified sage".

Justin Martyr, The First Apology, XXI (around 150 ce):

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Cæsar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?........"

It goes on but, Justin Martyr is clearly inadvertently admitting that those Pagan gods existed first. Justin never even tries to claim that it was the Pagans who "borrowed" from the Christians.

reply to post by adjensen
Regarding your last statement, there is plenty in logic and reason that says a person is incapable of discerning between fact and fiction because the individual has revealed that they would so deeply believe in something without real proof. There isn't a single person on this planet live or dead who knows what God is. It's all purely speculation really.

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
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

False! There are numerous, unflattering references to Ya'hshuah in the Talmud. en.wikipedia.org...

Besides, there is no proof to the claims that the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius were forgeries. Especially since Suetonius puts Christ on the same level as Socrates, referring to him as the "crucified sage".

LOL, even Christian New Testament scholars disagree with you. At least those who are honest.

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."

- Merrill C. Tenney

- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 85-86

* Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

If you put the religious texts of most major religions in the world to the same test, you would find that hardly any of their claims have any evidence to back them, too. Religion is a whole lot of blind faith, without much thought or evidence offered to back it up.

Originally posted by manna2
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?

There are, by definition, no "church fathers" among the Gnostics, as they were a different religion. If you are interested in their church fathers, the best you can do is look at the works of Marcion and Valentinus. Marcion, though, was a big fan of Paul -- despite his Gnostic beliefs, he pretty much thought that Paul was the bomb.

reply to post by kallisti36


BTW while we are talking lies and exposing....i have a few for you....
1.bushes dont talk
2.you cant get every animal on a boat
3 lets talk about a great man 200+ years after he was born while providing no evidence but stories to tell.
4.chariots do not come from the sky, and especially while on fire.
5. seas to not part with a wave of a stick
6. walking on water is improbable unless frozen of course, not that cold in the middle east
7.snakes dont talk
8.cant make a women from a mans rib , would be really small

there are allot more but my point is simple the OP is upset that stories that are "lying" about stories that are most likely lies, which sounds pretty silly...to be honest unless he has the very first hebrew bible and can understand it then i will give what he is saying more consideration..

people should be open to all possibilities but not concern themselves some much on who made us and were are we from and who should we worship, cause u are just setting yourself up for great frustration and then losing the chance to live in the NOW, cause thats what it all boils down to, all will be revealed when it is time, do u try to see in the dark?? no u wait till its light..we cannot comprehend those questions not yet...and yes it is ok to believe or speculate but there is no right and wrong cause no one knows...

Here is one way to look at belief and religion. Ther're are around 6700 ways to say Apple, no matter what name u give it doesnt change what it is...u cant say "no it is not an apple it is a pomme or alma " they are just different describing names...religions and beliefs are just describing different ways for the same thing because it is what it is, we all head to the same point.

all the best to you all, and live in the now, big things will unfold in time and by its self.and no matter what u want to believe in in the end it is what it is.

This video is 1 hour and 30 minutes demonstrating that Zeitgeist is accurate and he has several more on different topics all with primary sources. So, sorry to all the anti-Zeitgeist part 1 and anti-Acharya S fanatics out there but, you are wrong and you have been proven wrong.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


No, he's making parallels between Christ and pagan gods to win over Greek converts. As I've said, Justin Martyr was a pious Christian, but not a good apologist.

I agree that ZG is forcing similarities to achieve its agenda but, it's the whole "Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again" that gets me. As others have posted, it doesn't help to attack people and club them with your beliefs,

You yourself (OP) have pointed out that the title is misleading. You've concentrated mainly on the religious aspects of ZG and even mentioned that other parts may be correct. Also, you are asking others to provide proof that the debunking videos are wrong which, in my mind, means the issue has yet to be decided.

While I agree with you in general regarding ZG, I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by it that you have to command others how they should act. I guess it's that arrogance that is so off-putting.

Originally posted by lildaddy985
reply to post by kallisti36

 

I think that it's rather interesting that that the OP is so very animated about the toes of religion being stepped on, while the (in my opinion) meatier substance remains untouched. A lot of disinformation takes this route. Attack the harder to prove parts of an argument and insist that the entire work is a fallacy.
My big questions, I guess, are are you saying that The Gov't's story about 911 is true? Are you saying that the Federal reserve is a part of the US Gov't? Were they lying about a drill was going on while the Subway Bombings took place? I guess my real point is that if you find one fault in a litany of arguments, that doesn't prove every point wrong. That sort of thinking is "MAGICAL" and, I think, very cute. I'm not even sure that you should waste time here arguing the validity of YOUR religious beliefs here. We are all free to believe whatever we wish, but please try not to be so dictatorial about what is or is not an acceptable discussion for this forum.

For me, zeitgeist completely blew it with their theosophy slant in the religion segment leaving huge holes because of the leading assumptions and flat out fallacious claims.
But I have been able to easily prove to myself the rest of the documentary had alot of facts that brings up lots of unanswered questions.
It aligns with the open society does it not?

Originally posted by adjensen

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.

LMAO! Yep, that's about the level of intelligence for the typical anti Zeitgeist / anti-Acharya s ranter - you didn't click on a single link to notice that the sources are cited from Indian/Hindu religious scholars. Epic fail on your part for being too lazy to even check - but you have no problem jumping to pre-conceived conclusions and knee-jerk reactions.

Originally posted by Darkmask
There isn't a single person on this planet live or dead who knows what God is. It's all purely speculation really.

Ironically, I wouldn't disagree with you, although more in the abstract than the specific. It's actually a cornerstone of Christian belief -- the Doctrine of the Incomprehensibility of God.

In my opinion, the best approach to trying to sort out what God might be is to use Thomas Aquinas' "via negativa theology" -- he may be described by what he is not.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


I'm already unimpressed with this video. The guy jumps right into the Dec 25th nonsense. Even if the birthdays of Osiris or Horus were on these days, it wouldn't matter, because Ya'hshuah's birthday is never given. However, I will continue watching.

reply to post by kallisti36


He's showing the parallells because they are there to make. It doesn't matter WHY he made them, that's a red herring, it only matters that he logically could make them and so did. And he could because Christianity was similar in very many ways to the pagan religions which came LONG before it.

Why?

Because Christianity copied many aspects of these older pagan religions and mythologies.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


I had problems with this before I even started to waste my time reading it.

A. Couldn't find it in EbscoHost, and I ran the search on the title, using all the databases I could at my disposal. No results. That tells me that I should try the author, and limit the search to AU (author only). No results were found.
B. Its written like its a forum post, with no format (such as MLA), at all. No citations, No reference page, and no real intro.

I really do appreciate real world scientists and philosophers who believe in God and their works. This is nothing more than an organized blog post.

I haven't read Dawkins, or Sagan actually. I would like to, but my current class load won't allow me much free time.

OP, lets see something real and reputable. I can make a youtube bash video.

Here's another video on the virgin birth. It's part 4.



It goes well with this thread on Mithras too

www.freethoughtnation.com...

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

Originally posted by adjensen

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.

LMAO! Yep, that's about the level of intelligence for the typical anti Zeitgeist / anti-Acharya s ranter - you didn't click on a single link to notice that the sources are cited from Indian/Hindu religious scholars. Epic fail on your part for being too lazy to even check - but you have no problem jumping to pre-conceived conclusions and knee-jerk reactions.

Oh, I did. Here are some highlights:

book cover
text that says eight kids
another text that says it

I have no idea what this is supposed to be

There are no facts on that page regarding Krishna being born of a virgin, just a bunch of arguments that try to obfuscate the whole thing.

So you want to claim that the Hindus are wrong about their own beliefs, but that this woman with a BA in Greek Civilization, who's shilling a book, is right? Okay -- like I said, you're welcome to believe whatever you want.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


Blatant misrepresentation of the trinity, misrepresentation of Jewish use of incense, making suppositions about Egyptian hyroglyphs based on Acharya S's psuedo-archaeology without consulting experts, and insistence on numbering the Magi. All while providing Family Guy clips. I'm done.