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: 30
78
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Checked out your "Acharya Agrees with Acharya" link again. So let me get this right: First Acharya admits to playing fast & loose with the sun/son comparison and then quotes a work from the 1700's that still doesn't make her point?


I understand, it went way over your head.

There you go with your "Acharya Agrees with Acharya" LIE again. If you really read the link you'd see that she cites other scholars there too. Just stop lying.

The Son of God is the Sun of God
freethoughtnation.com...
edit on 21-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If the jehovah’s witnesses watch tower pamphlets are the only information left 3000 years from now to tell researcher’s about the nature of christianity would it be reasonable to use that as source of information to make a judgement about christianity and its many branches as it is known today?

I think it’s far simpler to say:
If the god’s zeitgeist mentions are personifications of the sun and since jesus is nothing more than a personification of the sun then zeitgeist has made their case



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
I have already posted a response to that straw man argument. Acharya responded to that issue in her FAQ's long ago:

The Son of God is the Sun of God
freethoughtnation.com...


Help me out here.


The bottom line is that even if we do not accept the etymology of Bryant and Roy, the fact will remain that the assertion that the son of God is the sun of God represents a clever play on words which reflects reality within the world of mythology.


So, you're saying that the English language was formulated, almost a thousand years ago, in such a way as to support your goofy theory in modernity? A belief that is directly contrary to scripture, which is what the people who spoke Middle English 900 years ago would have had a pretty strict adherence to? Simply cite something in the Bible that says "Jesus is the sun, that glowing thing up in the sky" and you've proven your point. Barring that, you're making stupid and unfounded claims.


However, it needs to be stated that nobody is claiming that "son" and "sun" sounding the same is proof of anything.


Then why even mention it in the first place, and, for heaven's sakes, why keep defending it? Just say "okay, that was kind of dumb" and move along. Are you afraid that the whole house of cards is going to crumble if you begin to admit error?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
I think it’s far simpler to say:
If the god’s zeitgeist mentions are personifications of the sun and since jesus is nothing more than a personification of the sun then zeitgeist has made their case.


Making something simple doesn't take away the requirement of evidence. Please provide proof of your statement "jesus is nothing more than a personification of the sun", which you present as fact.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


LOL, the willful ignorance is rampant around here isn't it.

"Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.

"The Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in his wings."

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ."

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
stellarhousepublishing.com...



The Son of God is the Sun of God
freethoughtnation.com...


edit on 21-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


No, we just check with history instead of accepting everything that comes out of Acharya S' sinful mouth



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


that name would've been Son of Sun (ra), if you believe the circle with a dot in the center is the sun. i don't think it is. i think the disk on ra's head is mars. So to me that reads Son of Mars.
edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


that name would've been Son of Sun (ra), if you believe the circle with a dot in the center is the sun. i don't think it is. i think the disk on ra's head is mars. So to me that reads Son of Mars.
edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)


WRONG - the circle with a dot in it is most definitely a symbol of the sun. Even your own source shows that. Why are the anti-Zeitgeist crowd so blatantly dishonest?
edit on 21-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


For the love of---!

I am so sick of these comments. Maybe I should have pretended to be an atheist in this thread so people like you would actually listen. Nothing in Zeitgeist matches up. 5 minutes of research will show you that no other deity was crucified on a Roman Cross, nor are any of their stupid cruciform examples even close to Ya'hshuah's cross. "Osiris was crucified because he was cut into pieces", "Krishna was crucified because he was shot in the foot", "Dionysus was crucified, oh wait, that's a forgery? Errr... look at my nebulous sources!". Do you see the liberties they take? Acharya will take any depiction of a deity with outstretched arms and say that he/she is crucified. Krishna was not born of a virgin, he was the eighth child. Horus was not born of a virgin or conceived of the holy spirit, but by artificial insemination. This stuff is utter BS.

Look, even the Rational Response Squad agrees with me that Zeitgeist and Acharya S are full of it: www.rationalresponders.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


that name would've been Son of Sun (ra), if you believe the circle with a dot in the center is the sun. i don't think it is. i think the disk on ra's head is mars. So to me that reads Son of Mars.
edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)


WRONG - the circle with a dot in it is most definitely a symbol of the sun. Even your own source shows that. Why are the anti-Zeitgeist crowd so blatantly dishonest?
edit on 21-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)


i said, it would read Son of Sun. That doesn't mean that Jesus is the sun. It doesn't mean sons are suns. I just added my own theory. My theory is, references in egyptology to the sun being the red disk on the heads of egyptian gods, is incorrectly translated, and is in fact, mars. So to ME, that's me as in undo, it says Son of Mars.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


I don't watch videos generally, and please stop reposting the junk from your website. ATS is a debate forum, and I would like to respond to your opinion, not watch videos that you like.

If you wish to make a point, please do so, and if you want it to be seen as being credible, include sources which are not circular. Saying that Zeitgeist, a Zeitgeist zealot, or D.M. Murdock agrees with D.M. Murdock demonstrates nothing. Murdock's convoluted logic that vindicates her whacky theories by showing that, for example, Krishna is not the Krishna that Hindus believe him to be, but the personification of someone completely unrelated, is similarly worthless.

You buy into the cult of Murdock. We get that. What we don't get is why.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


whats your theory of who they are attacking if not christians? i'm curious!
cause this zeitgeist thing is really perplexing.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
adjensen,


I don't watch videos generally, and please stop reposting the junk from your website. ATS is a debate forum, and I would like to respond to your opinion, not watch videos that you like.


LOL, that's *YOUR* problem. The videos often include primary sources and scholarly commentary on them that confirm Zeitgeist part 1 and Acharya S's work. One would think that primary sources and scholarly commentary on them would be important - not for you and the anti-Zeitgeist and anti-Acharya S crowd. Okay - got it. You're not interested in the facts or evidence - that way you can keep pretending they don't exist. So, who's really part of a CULT here? Yeah, I think we know who.

"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."

"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"

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

"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...

"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
—Dr. Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus and The New Testament Code, RobertEisenman.com

"Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves—indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence."
—Barbara Walker, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets and Man Made God

"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
—Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary, Chicago, HollywoodJesus.com

"Thirty years ago, when in divinity school, I might have had second thoughts about becoming an Episcopal priest if a book like D. M. Murdock's Who Was Jesus? had been available to me."
—Bob Semes, Retired university professor of History and Religion, Founder and Executive Director of The Jefferson Center

"Ms. Murdock is one of only a tiny number of scholars with the richly diverse academic background (and the necessary courage) to adequately address the question of whether Jesus Christ truly existed as a walking-talking figure in first-century Palestine."
—David Mills, Atheist Universe

"Thank you, Acharya, for the important work you are doing. Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ just might be the best short introduction to Biblical scholarship yet."
—David Bergland, 1984 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, Libertarianism In One Lesson

"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
—Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church, Houston, TX

"Acharya S has done a superb job in bringing together the rich panoply of ancient world mythology and culture, and presenting it in a comprehensive and compelling fashion."
—Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

"The Christ Conspiracy—very, very scholarly and wholly researched—is a book for today..."
-Rev. B. Strauss, ex-Catholic Priest, Chicago, IL

"Amidst the global chaos of George Bush's War on Terror, largely founded on religious intolerance and simplistic notions of good and evil, Acharya S is the voice of reason."
—Joan D'Arc, Paranoia

"D.M. Murdock could well be the most brilliant, insightful and rigorous theologian writing today."
—Robert Tulip

"Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era."
—John K.

"Acharya S/Murdock deserves an award for her hard work and courage. She is the Galileo of our day!"
—Charles Johnson

"Acharya S knows more about the ancient Mysteries than any living scholar."
—Christopher Knowles

www.freethoughtnation.com...
edit on 21-2-2011 by GoldenKnight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


There is an effect known as procession of the equinoxes
en.wikipedia.org...


Earth's precession was historically called precession of the equinoxes because the equinoxes moved westward along the ecliptic relative to the fixed stars, opposite to the motion of the Sun along the ecliptic. This term is still used in non-technical discussions, that is, when detailed mathematics are absent. Historically,[2] Hipparchus is credited with discovering precession of the equinoxes. The exact dates of his life are not known, but astronomical observations attributed to him by Ptolemy date from 147 BC to 127 BC.


Basically the effect is that the zodiacal constellations the sun appears to raise in on the equinoxes changes over time and this gives use astrological ages

en.wikipedia.org...

we are currently in the Piscean Age and the Time-frame for this is considered to be began in ca. AD 1 and ends in ca. AD 2150. (note the start date)

cristinalaird.files.wordpress.com...

Pisces – so the symbolisms is based on fish/fisherman ect



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
My problem with Zeitgeisters is no different than the problem I have with many who claim to be Christians.

There's such a small percentage of folk within the movement that are 'pure' enough to actually make this 'we are the world' philosophy work. Thusly it will NEVER work. At least not in their hands.

Acharya doesn't mind bending (and I'm being kind here) the truth and Peter Joseph shows the mind-set of a dictator amongst an organization that shows the sure signs of cult-like behavior.

I've referenced before that I have spent much time amongst a community that professes to hold the ideals of Zeitgeist. A lot of them are sincere up to a point. But it's really only a 'sounds good on paper' type of thing, because they not only have their own hate-filled prejudices, but also lack any chutzpah to live up to their imagined 'ideals.'

When the going gets tough, they would snatch the carrot off your plate faster than you can say 'we are all god.'

To you very few Zeitgeisters who have the fortitude to live up to your convictions: This is not aimed at you. I saw a video where one guy (Zeitgeister) was calling out Peter Joseph to live up to his rhetoric and he got slammed pretty hard. (See video below.)

That's what happens in cults that are full of themselves no matter what the monicker--and yes that includes some folk who call themselves Christian.

And that brings me to an on-topic observation: More than a few Zeitgeisters have stated that the OP's point is valid in reference to the pt 1 claims. Good on 'em. They should be in charge of the movement.

Warning; The language and a couple of visuals can be a little harsh but Meet Your Dictator:







edit on 21-2-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight

"Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era."
—John K.


Ooh! "John K." is on board? Fantastic, colour me impressed!


Your endorsements by fellow Jesus Myth proponents like Robert Price might help you sell books, but they don't grant you much credibility. I'm still waiting for YOU to demonstrate that you have some ability beyond being a shill for a pseudo-intellectual, who has been proven time and again to be wrong. The fact that even skeptics and atheists feel the need to discredit her kind of makes the case that she's something of an embarrassment.

I did have to laugh at the Zeitgeist forum on religion, which basically says "Go argue about Part One of the movie on Acharya's forum, cause we're not all that interested."



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by adjensen
 


whats your theory of who they are attacking if not christians? i'm curious!
cause this zeitgeist thing is really perplexing.


Oh, they're attacking the Christians, all right. But not with the expectation that any Christian would take them seriously. I'm working on a separate thread on the subject, maybe have it up later today or tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by adjensen
 


Basically the effect is that the zodiacal constellations the sun appears to raise in on the equinoxes changes over time and this gives use astrological ages

en.wikipedia.org...

we are currently in the Piscean Age and the Time-frame for this is considered to be began in ca. AD 1 and ends in ca. AD 2150. (note the start date)


How does any of that answer my simple question of:


Please provide proof of your statement "jesus is nothing more than a personification of the sun", which you present as fact.


"Personification of the sun" is a very specific claim, please provide evidence for making this statement, and vague remarks about astrology and similar mysticisms are not evidence, as the Judaic religion, from which Christianity grew, was most assuredly not an astrologically oriented faith. If you read Daniel, for example, astrologers are clearly depicted as charlatans and ineffectual advisors.
edit on 21-2-2011 by adjensen because: clarification



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I think that fact that Jesus alleged birth date coincides with a change of astronomical age and that the of the symbolism associated with christianity is based around this age change or solar symbols – are enough to make it clear to anybody that christianity is just another sun cult, well anybody who isn’t heavily emotionally invested whole talking snake/jewish zombie non-sense


These are posts I made on this thread about jebus been a sun god

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


based on the other events happening at the time, jesus' birth would not have been decemeber 25th. it can be tracked based on things like jewish calendar. which had specific events on it, such as passover, which have a specific date. so are you saying that because the catholic church decided to use winter solstice for the birth of jesus, that it proves he was actually born on that day on the jewish calendar? to be specific, catholicism is an ecumenical religion. they deliberately adopt symbols of other beliefs into their ritual, but these symbols are by and large, not in the bible. now why would they do that, if it wasn't just an attempt at being ecumenical, rather than being in the text of the bible itself? this is the part i don't think some folks are comprehending.
edit on 21-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join