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: 13
78
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
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.
edit on 17-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)


Lol. You just dont get it do you? It doesnt matter what the 'real' birthday of a myth is, thats another red herring.

The pertinent fact is that Christians came to celebrate the birth of their God on December the 25th, which is a pagan, pre christian, holy day. Why? Either because they always believed this, because Christianity was copying prechristian paganism, or because they later chose to celebrate it on that day because they were copying pagan, pre Christian tradition.

Either way, it shows the Christian propensity for basing their religion on pagan, pre Christian practices and beliefs, which is EXACTLY Zeitgeists point.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Why?

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

I would disagree, only partially. A lot of scholars wouldn't say copied, but they would suggest that Christianity adopted pagan traditions because it made it easier to convert others over to the religion. You can see this happening today in some nations of Africa.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Blaine, as a fundamentalist completely indoctrinated and sublimated to the religious way of thinking, I have absolutely no doubt that you will never be able to think clearly as non-theists do.

Therefore, the lack of understanding that you have when it comes to the Zeitgeist Movement is no surprise.

My only concern is that you may do yourself some harm when (and it will happen) you realise just how wrong you are.

The Rev.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I have seen a lot of anti-Zeitgeist films and I would recommend Chris White's material. He debunks a lot of popular conspiracy material and shills like Acharya S. I used to love Zeitgeist as it really opened my eyes towards the world but after seeing how inaccurate, and downright purposely false, it is at places I can't see it as anything other than a bad documentary with a bad agenda.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You realize that its possible for various versions of mythology to exist right? Those who constructed Christianity just chose the ones they preferred or which predominated in their region.

Just because you can find versions which say one thing doesnt mean there aren't versions which say another.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by tinfoilman
 




Could you please provide a few sources on that? From my understanding the word messiah is from a Hebrew word that has its origins in Judaism. It's a Hebrew word for a religious redeemer of Judaism/Islam who has been anointed by oil or by God to redeem the religion.



Actually, I think you will find that Messiah is derived from the EGYPTIAN word MESSEH which means crocodile. (Messiah being the annointed one) The pharaohs having been annointed with crocodile fat. Like most of the OT plagiarised from Egyptian belief systems.

There are some who believe King Tut's daddy, Akhenaten, was Moses. He was certainly the progenitor (get it...genesis) of the one god belief system....and the time line fits. Maybe even Akhenaten had hebrew blood since the hebrews certainly were NOT the slaves of Egypt as depicted in the OT....the Nubians were. The hebrews married into the royal line.

Amen sorry Amun...sorry RA.

Etymology is where it's at.



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

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


Only interested in sources from Zeitgeist. Source from Zeitgeist? Where does it say this in Zeitgeist?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:47 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, this thread is just about Zeitgeist. I'm not trying to prove Christianity. I'm only interested in Zeitgeist. People keep trying to change the topic to other things. Please, only talk about Zeitgeist.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Not here to argue about the Mazzaroth. Only here to argue about any factual errors present in Zeitgest. Please, only talk about Zeitgeist. I'm not here to argue there are no similarities between Jesus and other religions. I'm only here to find out if Zeitgeist contains factual errors.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Traditions don't mean anything. The base of Christian belief is the gospels, not celebrations or practices that were incorporated centuries later. The gospels pre-date all of the trans religious ecumenicalism by centuries. I do not argue that pagan customs were adopted into Christianity to appeal to pagans. Christianity is a very maleable religion, practices vary from culture to culture. In Africa, they sing hymms based on old tribal chants. Some Native American Christians adopted Peyote into their rituals. Unless you can attach these accusations of plagarism to the base of Christian teachings, you are presenting a red herring.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
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.


LOL, nice try & ad homs aside but, Dr. Price says he still goes to church. The failure of the Jesus Seminar is irrelevant here and had nothing to do with him. Dr. Price is not "anti-Christian" he's simply far more honest.

So, anyone who tells the truth about Christianity is "anti-christian" with an "axe to grind."? How about all those NT scholars who disagree with you? "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" contains an almost all Christian scholar bibliography basically admitting that when it comes to evidence for Jesus, none exists.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


This is about Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist made some basic claims and supported them with some specific references. It couldn't provide exhaustive evidence for it's claims in the movie because it was going at breakneck speed covering many topics. Much of the evidence it provided still holds up.

So we are discussing Zeitgeists basic claims regarding Christianity, which were based on more research and evidence than the movie had time to include.

It seems to me that you don't want to hear any evidence which supports Zeitgeists claims regarding Christianity, if it wasn't in Zeitgeist because you don't want to face the fact that Zeitgeist might have been accurate in its claims.
edit on 17-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by frozenspark
I have seen a lot of anti-Zeitgeist films and I would recommend Chris White's material. He debunks a lot of popular conspiracy material and shills like Acharya S. I used to love Zeitgeist as it really opened my eyes towards the world but after seeing how inaccurate, and downright purposely false, it is at places I can't see it as anything other than a bad documentary with a bad agenda.


LOL, I would be thoroughly embarrassed to recommend anything by Chris White. He and Keith TRASH are addressed here

Keith "Truth" is a useful idiot
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Keith Truth - Liar for the Lord


What do you call a person...?


Keith's Tactics



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


*looks up author* Ah, D.M. Murdock, Acharya S.
Acharya S. is not an archaeologist. Her sources are false and misrepresented.
Provide a real scholar who agrees with these opinions.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
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.


but the mazzaroth predates the myths, or poser heros.
I think it's easy to see that all of them are following the same script.
It is prophecy.
Firts the mazzaroth-creation.
Then Moses and the law and prophets then fulfillment-grace
To me zeitgeist proves this, they just draw seriously flawed conclusions due to selective editing out critical pieces of the puzzle.
kinda like taking all the copies of the Mona Lisa as proof that the original model was the painting and not the person.
It all started with prophecy and the earliest we know of is mazzaroth



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
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.
edit on 17-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)


You don't know much about the Gnostics do you. Or commentary from early church fathers on this issue.

Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus:

"O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born ... Christ should be born"

- Cyprian

She has some topics in her FAQ's:

"What about December 25th and the winter solstice?"

"3 Kings/Orion's Belt & Solstice/Christmas"

www.freethoughtnation.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Provide sources independent of the Zeitgeist movement. Give me real scholars, not Acharya S., Freke, Gandy, or Peter Joseph. The guy you keep linking to sources Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist's sources. I want real scholars, real professors, and real archaeologists.



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

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


This is about Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist made some basic claims and supported them with some specific references. It couldn't provide exhaustive evidence for it's claims in the movie because it was going at breakneck speed covering many topics. Much of the evidence it provided still holds up.

So we are discussing Zeitgeists basic claims regarding Christianity, which were based on more research and evidence than the movie had time to include.

It seems to me that you don't want to hear any evidence which supports Zeitgeists claims regarding Christianity, if it wasn't in Zeitgeist because you don't want to face the fact that Zeitgeist might have been accurate in its claims.
edit on 17-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)


Yes I do, but I only want to hear about evidence pertaining to Zeitgeist that proves the OP's video wrong. Like I said, I'm not here to argue that there are no similarities between Christianity and other religions. That's irrelevant.

I'm only here to argue about the claims made in Zeitgeist and the OP's video. I'm not trying to prove Zeitgeist is correct. I'm trying to prove that OP's video is wrong. The last time you posted evidence to do that, that evidence had already been debunked in the OP's video and turned out not to be evidence at all.

So, I asked you if you disagree with the OP's video's interpretation of Justin Martyr and gave you a chance to explain how the OP's debunking video is wrong on the topic of Justin Martyr. As far as I can tell, you never replied to me, signed off, and then dishonestly rejoined the thread later never answering my question.

So, I'll ask again. My question is, the OP's video already debunks some facts in Zeitgeist. Do you disagree with what the OP's video says? Was it wrong in any of the ways it debunks Zeitgeist. If so, what parts of the OP's video do you take issue with?

I don't care if Zeitgeist is wrong or not. I'm asking you, can you show evidence to prove the debunk video that started the thread wrong, or can you explain why you think the evidence cited in the OP's video should be thrown out? Or do you accept what the OP's video says, and that Zeitgeist does have factual errors in it?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


*looks up author* Ah, D.M. Murdock, Acharya S.
Acharya S. is not an archaeologist. Her sources are false and misrepresented.
Provide a real scholar who agrees with these opinions.


Despite your antagonistic hatred for a female author that you have clearly never read, there are several professional scholars who do support her work. Oh, she has posted pics of her on archaeological digs in Crete where the apostle Paul supposedly was so, now would be a really good time for you to simply stop lying out your arse.

"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...

Was there something in the quote below that you don't understand?

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."

- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology
www.freethoughtnation.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
hey golden knight, your 3rd video is private.. can't view it



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
This thread jumps so much I am getting vertigo.

First off I want to state by no means am I; a scholar in any discipline beyond breathing. I think I got that down packed. Anyway I am curious if anybody on here has any concept of perception.

Do you know what reality is?
How do you know this?

Life itself is taken on the faith of what you perceive to be accurate. As far as I can tell, as long as the human condition has been around we have always tried to fill the void of the unknown with something. One thing you have to take into fact (which this is a slight contradiction unto myself being that a fact is still based on faith that what your perceive is) is that the perception of an individual from 2000 years, or even 100 years ago is going to be greatly different then any current perception you may have now.

I personally believe in Jesus. I have no backing for, or against my beliefs; nor do I wish to research any further for it. Its just not my cup of tee. I mean I'd rather have faith in something greater than me than to have faith in abiogensis; and that a rock magically generated life from nothing (slightly over simplified). In one I get to kick it with a guy that turns water into wine (come on... thats awesome) in the other... I would have to believe in basically the impossible, and I don't get wine. Let there be RNA... poof. No wine. I choose an after life... point for Jesus. It just better not be boxed wine.

On another note, war is conducted by man not religion. To make a claim of conducting actions in the name something does not taint that something because of it. Well maybe it does for the ignorant. Every man is accountable for his own actions. Will Germany forever be tainted by the atrocity conducted by its forefathers in the name of, or is it not without reason to state that one is accountable for ones own deeds. One good aspect of the Christianity is forgiveness of sins of your fathers at birth; you know so your not sh#$ out of luck.
Humanity is soaked in blood, and will forever keep the same vicious cycle of bloodshed; its human nature. One must satisfy ones own appetites. Have you never longed for something, because of our bottomless appetites certain future atrocities are unavoidable. Of course one day we could have a pill that nullifies all emotions, but even then that wouldn't last forever. It'll probably cause constipation, and nausea anyway.

My point is your life, no matter how much you deny it is based on some sorta faith/belief system thats collimates your perception of reality. I am curious how everybody's beliefs will be effected if they ever find the Higgs Boson particle. Hmmmmm....

On the OP's video and discussion the fact of the matter is he just wants to have a civil intelligent debate with people backing the first 3 parts of the Zeitgeist videos. His remarks and rebuttals seemed extremely intelligent and for the most part nonabrasive. Seems pretty simple to me. Of course who am I... a Theologists by no means thats for sure.
My perception of what he was getting at was that everything he takes is based on faith. While the Zeitgeist (at least the religious agenda) tries to disprove faith with false facts from sources that are highly questionable, and utilize alot of creative freedom.
So on faith one doesn't need to prove anything since faith is based on belief without proof. Which by the way can an atheist prove there is no god (Nope they take that on faith. Funny stuff.) Anyway with that said, like it has already been stated the burden of proof lies with the Zeitgeist defenders. Anything based on Faith doesn't really need to prove anything... because that wouldn't be faith. Plus to properly start your debunking it's probably a good idea to use factual evidence rather then defamatory remarks.

I wonder if that made any sense.....

-The Great Procrastinator



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join