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

reply to post by kallisti36


The cross thing or figure in a cross like pose:
Draw a circle, at the top of the circle write winter solstice at the bottom of the circle write summer solstice then draw a line between them, at the right of the circle write spring equinox and at the left of the circle write autumn equinox and draw a line

Divide the circle into 12 and you have
farm3.static.flickr.com...
or
farm3.static.flickr.com...

this considered to be one of the oldest conceptual images in human history

put a picture of a man on that and bingo – a sun god

so any time you see a cross in a circle or a figure on a cross you are probably looking at some kind of sun worship

en.wikipedia.org...
The Piscean Age:
began in ca. AD 1 and ends in ca. AD 2150. ---note the start date

zodiacimages.net...

www.yourskyscope.com...

the miracle of the five loaves and -two fish-?

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CuteAngel

 

Actually, the Bible as we know it today is a compilation of varying authors, which were chosen by the Roman Empire to suit their needs of reconciling the old Pagan Roman religions and the new religion of Christ and his followers. Jesus appointed Peter as head of this new Church. It turns out that the concept of the trinity came from Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180 and then later Tertullian.

Yes the Gospels are composed by various authors, but all of the Gospels, including the Gnostic gospels, pre-date Roman control of the Church. Pagan practices were adopted, as well as tenable doctrines like the trinity. However, scripture remains unchanged since it was written. There are thousands of copies of the canonical gospels that pre-date Romanization and they are all within 99% agreement with each other. The Trinity was a result of trying to explain the different aspects of God and trying to reconcile them with the doctrine that "God is One". Is it true? I have no idea, it really isn't addressed in scripture, but it's as good an explanation as any. Heck, the truth might even be more confusing than the trinity, the nature of God is according to dogma "incomprehensible" anyway.

Banned from the official bible are the writings of Origen, who was at first accepted in Christian thought, and later anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. source orthodoxwiki.org...
Other ancient writings not included are excerpts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although the book of Enoch is included in the Apocrypha after beind discovered by James Bruce in 1773. source reluctant-messenger.com...

Nestor, Arius, and Origen had doctrines that caused division among the Church. They might have been right, but as we now see from the thousands of arguing factions of Christianity, division is not very productive. The Orthodox church set up dogma to end the divisive debates, they might be wrong, but I don't think believing in monophysitism or diophytism is necessary for salvation, it just causes division.

I do agree with you about the Book of Enoch. I believe it is genuine scripture and reveals a lost doctrine that I believe to have been deliberately censored by the Roman Church and Rabbinic Judaism. An understanding of history, and the languages of the scripture show that angels did fall from Heaven and reproduce with human women. Rome likely covered this up to cover up the truth of Nephilim bloodlines that run from Babylon to Rome and to the modern world.

The Roman Empire wanted control and added various elements of its pagan religion to Christian doctrine and practice. The date of Christ's birth is one such example of inserting pagan beliefs into practice.

No arguments here. I don't think they manipulated scripture beyond censoring documents regarding the Watchers and Nephilim.

The Old Testament is of the Tanackh, a canon of the Hebrew Bible. It's always very interesting to me when people refer to writings of the Bible as the official Word of God as if it is autonomous from the authors who wrote it down. If you were to say today that something you write is the word of God, how many people would claim blasphemy? Also, there is the question of translation, as I believe that some meanings can be lost in translation say from the Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek to English, and from the King James version to say, the New King James Version. re -Psalm 138:2, KJV HomeArticlesFAQBooksVerse ChartsKJV DictionaryOnline KJVSearchContact
That link give specific examples of possible erroneous translations

You would be accused of blasphemy because the time of the prophets is over. There will be no more prophets until the two witnesses foretold in Revelations. Anyways, it's not as though the Jews didn't have standards for their prophets. There were rigid protocols in determining a prophet's claim to prophethood. And yes meanings can be lost in translation, but translators can usually find a way to get the whole meaning into the passage, by using different words. This is why I prefer literalistic translations such as the NASB over dynamic translations like the NIV. Literalistic translations are hard to understand unless you have immersed yourself in the study of Biblical language, but it's the best way to get all of the little details, which is very important for understanding prophecy. The KJV translation is far from perfect, but one can make a very good case for it. Personally I prefer my Greek/English Septuagint, because you can translate the passages yourself if you want. I do love how the KJV is written, especially in the NT which is much closer to the original Greek, which is easier to translate into English than Hebrew.

In the end, I believe we must go into the heart and find our connection with the Creator of all that is. There have indeed been some common threads in many religions. For one instance, the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is comparable to the Hindu Brahma(father, Visnu(Son), and Shiva(Holy Spirit). Kali is the Divine Mother. Why argue with these similarities? If these are common, then perhaps the nugget of truth is deeper in our reality than any one written or oral version.

My understanding of the Book of Enoch has lead me to believe that polytheism came about as a result of early human worship of the Watcher Angels, so I am wary of pagan/Christian pluralism, but you are entitled to your beliefs. The only real similarity between the Hindu trinity and the Christian is that there is three in one. The similarities end therem seeing as the personalities are in contrast whereas in the Christian Trinity, there are three personalities but one will.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I have duly noted your considerations, as well as your interest in the Bloodlines and your awareness of the Watchers. However I do have some further critique:
Of course you must have scanned and studied all the Puranas and the Vedas before coming to the absolute conclusion that there are no more similarites between Christian and Hindu doctrine than that of the Trinity. As evidence you have not, I submit this from the Hindu Vedas: "These are the very words of Veda. 'Prajapatir vai idam asit: In the beginning was Brahman. Tasya vag dvitya asit; with whom was the Vak or the Word... Vag vai paramam Brahma; and the word is Brahman." Here is a version of the same thing in John: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. "
This is not intended as an argument in favor of The Zeitgeist. I think Zeitgeist is a bit tedious in its anti religious stance, however I feel that certain issues in theology and scripture need to be more fully explored.

You ignored the other point of my statement, which is that the Trinity was not taught in Mark, Luke, Matthew or John, but was a doctrine inserted by a later Church theologist.
Here is one of the anathemas delivered unto Origen, who obviously had something to say about the "pre existence of the soul".....“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).”

The fact that the Emperor garnered support among some Cardinals of the time does not mean Origen's teachings were not accepted by more than a few. Perhaps Justinian was truly concerned about eliminating schism, which I doubt, since early Christians appear to have been comfortable with many of Origens ideas, including pre existence of the soul, or perhaps Justinian didnt want to accept those ideas.
Yes Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls were Pre early Roman church and I never said it wasnt, I merely said it was added later.
And yes I am entitled to my beliefs and also to my research
Heres one thing I found:
"Yet it was Prof. Eberhard Nestle himself who warned us in his Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments: "Learned men, so called Correctores were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned." When the Church of Constantine endeavored to make the teachings of the New Covenant in sync with fourth century Roman Pagan thought and culture, to ignore the facts with respect to the manner in which the corrupters of the Word recreated the message of the scriptures in order to make it compatible to church doctrine"
and:
"The truth and the facts to the matter is very clearly expressed in the words of Prof. Bart D. Ehrman in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, where he warns us that: "...theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy" -- which orthodoxy was to bring the text of the Bible into conformity with the doctrines and tenets of the Church of the Roman Emperor Constantine."
source: nazirene.org...
and also here: babylon-the-great.xanga.com...
Interestingly, I found the piece from the Nazirene page after reading your reply, and found it reflects my own consideration of the understanding of the heart.
Peace to you

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


i'm confused. did you just argue with yourself?

:

reply to post by kallisti36


You've got all that wrong. Try again without twisting what Zeitgeist really says, You wouldn't happen to be an upset fundy Christian would you? Why else would you care? Christians are supposed to be honest so tell the truth.

reply to post by kallisti36


Your debate is even weaker than the original Christian response to these well-known similarities between your human sacrifice and the many pagan equivalents; "The Devil did it to confuse people". Don't try to intellectualize your debates when you are trying to prove something completely illogical. Instead, be true to your faith and make up some other fairytale to contradict the facts that are presented to you.
-Q&A

reply to post by undo


Probably Im just getting oriented with the forum setup.

reply to post by undo


My reply was meant for Kallista

reply to post by undo


It wont let me change who I replied to

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by kallisti36

 

Your debate is even weaker than the original Christian response to these well-known similarities between your human sacrifice and the many pagan equivalents; "The Devil did it to confuse people". Don't try to intellectualize your debates when you are trying to prove something completely illogical. Instead, be true to your faith and make up some other fairytale to contradict the facts that are presented to you.
-Q&A

We can discuss your prejudices of Christianity in another thread. This thread is about Zeitgeist, which as far as I can see, has been pretty much debunked. There are better ways to argue against Christianity than to lie about it.

1.Krishna wasn't crucified (point against zeitgeist)
2. Krishna was not born of a virgin (another point)
3. Horus was not born of a virgin, was not resurrected, was not called the way, the truth, or the life, and didn't have twelve apostles (6 points)
4. The zodiac was established long after the establishment of the twelve tribes of Israel (another point)
5. Dionysus wasn't crucified (2 points because they used a forgery for this claim)
6. Dionysus was not born of a virgin (another point)
7. The Dionysus resurrection myth post-dates Christianity (2 points for coming to the opposite conclusion)
Shall I continue, or do you actually plan on watching the videos?

reply to post by racasan


that's interesting. it's not the only cross, however. there's also the crossing of jupiter (later called marduk) across the river of the sky, at which point it was called nibiru, which means crossing place or place of the cross. it was mirrored on the earth in that "As above, so below" thingy, in ancient sumer, where it coincided with the city of Nibru (called Nippur today. etymology, nibru, nibbur, nippur)., which had a crossing place over the euphrates.

the people of Enlil were from Nibru or Nibiru, and were known as the Habiru or the Hibiru (Hebrew). They were later known as the Hyskos Shepherd Kings. They went to egypt, ended up being pharaohs for awhile, grew unpopular, were enslaved, and eventually "chased" out of Egypt by Pharaoh Ahmose, brother of Moses via his adoptive egyptian family.

and there you have undo's fast and frill free version of the earliest "cross"

yer welcome.

here they are


this is what they looked like
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/1f3a4ce12d4e113a.jpg[/atsimg]

they were temple builders of Enlil. his stone masons. one of the reasons yeshua (jesus) mentions he is stone the builders threw away. lots of clues. just have to want to know.

reply to post by undo


Hi undo, I’m talking about a cross (+) inside a circle and the circle divided into 12

The cross signifying the points in the year when the amount of daylight is ether equal in length to the amount of dark (equinox) or the least amount of light (winter solstice) or the most amount the midsummer solstice

The circle was probably divided in to 12 to match up with the number of moon cycles, and any stars that are in the equatorial region of the night sky that fell into 1 of the 12 division became the zodiac constellations – because the sun seems to move through the equatorial region and so through those stars

This might be a useful place to start looking if anybody’s interested in that

en.wikipedia.org...

also
en.wikipedia.org...

This knowledge is the basis of any calendar systems humans’ use and it’s thanks to this knowledge that civilizations could start – it’s that important

My guess is that the people who worked this out and who created such things a Stonehenge ect became the first priests and they hide how it was done behind some religious mumbo jumbo and charged those that used their services 10% just to keep the whole thing going and to keep themselves from having to do any hard work

put a god on a cross or have it standing arms apart and you have a solar deity
Jesus is just another in a long line of solar deities that people have cooked up over the years

Look out for any mention of numbers in text such as the bible
12 – months
30 – degrees (360/12)
4 – seasons
33 – 30 degrees + 3 more degrees that signify the sun has full moved from one month to the next

Or any dates that match up with equinoxes or solstices

If you find any of these you are looking at a sun cult

How can you, the OP, saw Horus was not born a virgin? It is clearly documented all over the place. Because you are wrong on that one point I am going to conclude that you are wrong on many of your points....


Better luck next time.

reply to post by racasan


i agree that the sky played an important role (and still does). for example, read this incredible passage from the book of enoch

"And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven."

[...]

"And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are of the number of the stars of heaven, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.' And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. "

///

that's beyond a doubt, a description of what is called an "active galaxy." which has been called a quasar in the past. but we know now that it's a galaxy with a super massive black hole. the "Active" part is it's "feeding" and during the feeding process, it has 2 jets of radiation coming out of it, both up and down. here's a really good video that describes what's so important about enoch's reference. it's long but it's worth watching it till the end because what they discovered, unfolds, one discovery at a time. really fascinating.

Google Video Link

now the interesting part of enoch's experience, is the milky way was not an active galaxy in his time. so where the heck was he and how'd he get there?

here's a vid by another guy, who breaks down the entire description of the parts of the super massive black hole in the enoch reference (he's religious. so try to hang in there till he explains it)



this is my interprettion of what enoch saw, but as a diagram
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/007c5c450f31.jpg[/atsimg]

the part labelled the ergosphere is described as

Since the ergosphere is outside the event horizon, it is still possible for objects to escape from the gravitational pull of the black hole. An object can gain energy by entering the black hole’s rotation and then escaping from it, thus taking some of the black hole's energy with it. This process of removing energy from a rotating black hole was proposed by the mathematician Roger Penrose in 1969, and is called the Penrose process.[3] The theoretical maximum of possible energy extraction is 29% of the total energy of a rotating black hole. When this energy is removed, the black hole loses its spin and the ergosphere no longer exists. This process is considered a possible explanation for a source of energy of such energetic phenomena as gamma ray bursts. Results from computer models show that the Penrose process is capable of producing the high energy particles that are observed being emitted from quasars and other active galactic nuclei.

so the idea they were just looking at planets and stars from the earth, and making up stuff as they went along, doesn't sound quite right to me. we may not understand it all, or even have a constant frame of common reference, but that doesn't mean they aren't explaining something beyond what our science thought, 300 years ago. that's where most of the skepticism on these topics came from

reply to post by undo


You are forever trying to link biblical scripture with black holes.

I don't buy it, i prefer the scientific endevour of information, biblical descriptions of reality are outdated, there understanding of concepts such as ocean currents is VERY VERY basic. I don't trust that document, it's not scientific at all.

Originally posted by kallisti36

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.

LOL I love how this thread now makes entirely no sense. So the thread is about trying to Prove Zeitgeist, but in no way shape or form can you mention Christianity because that is not the topic of discussion here. It is souly about ONLY speaking about Zeitgeist after you watch an 8 part Christianity propaganda series, but don't mention Christianity!

Oh god, give me a break...

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by undo

 

You are forever trying to link biblical scripture with black holes.

I don't buy it, i prefer the scientific endevour of information, biblical descriptions of reality are outdated, there understanding of concepts such as ocean currents is VERY VERY basic. I don't trust that document, it's not scientific at all.

well yeah, it's my area of special study. did you want me to talk about something else? i agree with the guy in the second video in the post. it's a description of a super massive black hole in an active galaxy. pretty darn good description too.

Currently on the 6'th video... I was just wondering if anyone else finds these words coming from a Christian to be completely beyond calling the kettle black??????

'its time to stand up, and not take it anymore.' that 'this can all be stopped by us becoming more informed'.

and to 'stop being walked all over, and told what to think, and who to hate' that 'it's not up to them to tell you who to hate, because they are using two bit lies, half ass'ed lies to do so'

'stand up and say your not going to take this anymore!'


That just blows my mind, because isn't weekly that right here on ATS some Christian post's a thread condemning all Gay's, and tooting that god hates, or doesn't approve of/love them, and is going to banish them to hell because everything about them is wrong...?

Oh you hypocritical Christians... and your god telling you who to hate. However I guess in your eye's that is okay, because of course there is only ONE true God that can tell you who to hate, right?

reply to post by loagun


i dunno about other people but i don't spend my time thinking about other people's shortcomings or differences. and i definitely don't hate gay people. might want to ask people if they hate someone else before accusing them of it.