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: 39
78
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Science does the same thing? Science uses existing evidence (logical or empirical), but it does aim to improve itself when new data/information becomes available, or a new theory is more evident than an old one - which stands in it's favour. It's evident that science has a practical nature. Science is always at the edge of the known, Science is humble enough to admit it's current gnosticism, it's won't reveal wisdom that it could possibly not reveal, for that reason i trust it. Also, for that reason - i don't trust religious dogmatic nonsense.

To anyone who states "You can't trust science" - Here's a short video refuting that exact claim:-



I probably don't understand what you're saying, i won't be able to wrap my small mind around it. Sorry - i'm an intellectual peasant.
edit on 27/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
interesting video, but that's not the point. science has been known to be wrong about a theory every so often. for example, it keeps insisting that the catholic interpretation of the bible, 500 years ago, is the only way to interpret the bible.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
imagine this:

you take old books, written by other people, and compile them into a collection.

you claim the old books mean X, Y, Z and no other interpretation is necessary (or viable or allowed).

someone else comes along and translates it into another language based on your X, Y, Z viewpoint.

so now the old books are seen to mean X, Y, Z no matter what language it is written in because translators assume your X, Y, Z interpretation is the only applicable interpretation.

fast forward.

you, who compiled the books, and interpreted them to mean X, Y, Z, decide you don't believe them, so you insist, not that your original interpretation was incorrect, but that the original old books are incorrect and, as per your usual "i'm right and no other interpretation is allowed or viable or necessary," you insist everyone think of it the same way: the original books are wrong, not your interpretation of the original books. and you teach other people to view it the same way.

the biggest strawman in history.

end result of all that, is zeitgeist.
edit on 27-2-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Sorry, saw this several pages ago and just had to point it out-


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)


That was @ 5:29 PM on 2/17.


Originally posted by kallisti36
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.


That was only ten minutes later, @ 5:39 PM on the same day.

But the video is an hour and a half long.

This person clearly just hopped, jumped, & skipped around and did not watch the complete video and thus is without place to give a proper critique, as already evidenced by the false statements this poster made.

I wonder how this same poster would react if someone flipped through the Bible in ten minutes and then proceeded to make several inaccurate comments about it. Such cognitive dissonance.

"Blatant misrepresentation of the trinity". Well, the video only brought up one trinity, that of the Egyptian sun god Khepri-Ra-Atum. And THAT trinity was not misrepresented, it the reference to Ra as a trinity was cited right from a scholarly book(by Egyptologist Siegfried Morenz, former Director of the Institute of Egyptology at University of Liepzig), so no misrepresentation.
No other trinity was mentioned. Not even the christian trinity.

"misrepresentation of Jewish use of incense". This statement is entirely incorrect, since Jewish incense was not mentioned or even so much as alluded to not once in that entire video.
EGYPTIAN incense was referenced. The Magi's incense was reference. But Jewish incense, nope, not even once. Not even hinted at.

"making suppositions about Egyptian hyroglyphs based on Acharya S's psuedo-archaeology without consulting experts"
I don't recall Acharya S/Murdock even being mentioned anywhere in this video. And the only place I recall seeing a hieroglyph being used was in the citation from Egyptologist Louis Vico Žabkar, and translated by Egyptologist Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge. So to say the video didn't consult experts about certain material when the very material used came from credentialed experts is absurd.

"and insistence on numbering the Magi."
Just like many church fathers & authorities throughout history. And successfully, too, as explained in the video. No other number for magi has any better evidence to support it.

"All while providing Family Guy clips."
Clips is plural. There was only one brief like five to ten second clip, and just of Stewie laughing and that's it. Well, it is an annoying laugh though, I admit.

"I'm done."
Indeed you are. Roasted, toasted, and burnt to a crisp.

It's funny that the Christian trinity nor Jewish incense was not even so much as alluded to even once throughout that video, and yet your mind naturally made the correlation, so your own actions here prove that these parallels are the most succinct, natural, logical observation.

It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a naysayer in youtube comments, I pointed out to this fellow that there were other versions of the conception of Horus, like how Isis sent out her soul(her Ba) in the form of a bird to receive Osiris's seed, hence leaving Isis herself untouched.

That's all I said. I didn't mentioned the word virgin, and I sure as hell didn't mention anything about christianity or Mary at all.

So he replies back to me asking for references for my claims. So I repeated my claim word for word with emphasis that this was all I claimed, period, and then gave him the references for it.

He replied back thanking me for the references, but also said (paraphrasing) "Oh, so then you weren't trying to say that this was a parallel to Mary's virgin birth of Jesus".

At which point I pointed out to him how I never even so much as alluded to Mary or the biblical nativity whatsoever, and yet, just from me pointing out the bald facts about this other version of Horus's conception, his mind naturally made the correlation all on it's own without me having to point it out to him. After that, he shut the hell up and never replied back to me or anyone else on that video's comments.

These observations are indeed conspicuous and succinct, even to the minds of the naysayers.

The parallels are indisputable. The fact that many of them are pre-christian and even pre-judaism is also indisputable.

What IS disputable is why these parallels exist.

Are they evidence of borrowing, or just happenstance, or just evidence that creativity in the human mind operates in a similar manner for all humans across the planet. Or some other reason.

And THIS is where Zeitgeist and the Acharya crowd gets into trouble, as they overstate their case and assert not only that every similarity you can conjure up must be the result of intentional plagiarism, but also that there was some elaborate long standing conspiracy to cover it all up.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Chokemychicken because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 



jesus refers to himself in revelation as the Alpha and the Omega, which is the rod and staff or crook and flail, symbols of rulership of Egypt, held by the pharaohs. He said this because he was most likely the last pharaoh of Egypt, born to the egyptian cleopatra and julius caesar. this would've made him the emperor of the known roman world, the pharaoh of egypt, and due to his lineage from king david, he would've been the true leader of israel in at least 2 different ways. but because julius was murdered, he had to be shuffled away and his identity hidden, because he was next in line for the throne of the roman empire and the throne of egypt (and egypt was about to be invaded by the same rome that had killed julius) etc etc. there's videos on this topic if you're interested.


I love when people believe so much in the craziness of the Bible that they develop new outlandish stories. That is the nature of the disease. You should write your own bible about the history of Jesus. In fact, make it up as you go along. That is what happened in the Bible.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 



jesus refers to himself in revelation as the Alpha and the Omega, which is the rod and staff or crook and flail, symbols of rulership of Egypt, held by the pharaohs. He said this because he was most likely the last pharaoh of Egypt, born to the egyptian cleopatra and julius caesar. this would've made him the emperor of the known roman world, the pharaoh of egypt, and due to his lineage from king david, he would've been the true leader of israel in at least 2 different ways. but because julius was murdered, he had to be shuffled away and his identity hidden, because he was next in line for the throne of the roman empire and the throne of egypt (and egypt was about to be invaded by the same rome that had killed julius) etc etc. there's videos on this topic if you're interested.


I love when people believe so much in the craziness of the Bible that they develop new outlandish stories. That is the nature of the disease. You should write your own bible about the history of Jesus. In fact, make it up as you go along. That is what happened in the Bible.


well, what is the crook and flail?

answer, it's the alpha and omega. first pharaoh, last pharaoh.
first atum, last atum.
jesus refers to himself as the alpha and omega. any clue why he would say that about himself?
believe it or not, the cleopatra/caesar thing didn't come from a christian source. i found it here:



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

So in other words you are confirming Zeitgeist. The Bible is not true, and twists characters out of history and from other religions.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
No, this goes beyond Zeitgeist. I mean, wow, so Jesus was born at least 38 to 44 years before the gospels say he was born?
No wonder Irenaeus was under the impression that Jesus lived to be an old man!

edit on 2-3-2011 by Chokemychicken because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


no, not actually. on top of the data, i posted above, moses was raised as an egyptian, and told the egyptian story of creation in the book of genesis. in the egyptian story of creation, the god(s) ATUM (elohim) created humans in their image (thus a race called, adam). . "adam" as mentioned in genesis, is the hebrew version of the egyptian atum. but rather than being singular, it's plural (initially). Jesus is claiming to be one of those ATUM gods.
edit on 2-3-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
i'm on the fence with Zeitgeist. there's a lot of things i don't agree with like the religious stuff but the political content is spot on.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Undo, if you go back to my original post you will see that you have not proved anything but have just made everything more confusing. You are not validating the Bible.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by undo
 

Undo, if you go back to my original post you will see that you have not proved anything but have just made everything more confusing. You are not validating the Bible.



it entails knowing the various verses referring to jesus being the last adam.
the first adam was "sinless" before the fall narrative
and the last adam was sinless.
most think the first adam refers to a human being created in the image of god (elohim, which is a plural word)
i think this is just a case where the translators struggled with the phraseology of the passages, and what it's actually saying is a bit more precise. for example:

atum was a group of gods, male and female in appeaarance, who the first "atum" race were created in the image of. in effect, they were cloned in the image of the atum gods. the cloned atum race, is generally thought to be the same as the later "Adam and Eve". this is not so.

the fall narrative hadn't taken place yet, and the fall seems to be related to procreation. when we were modified to procreate (to have knowledge of was to know or have sex with the person, et.al, to procreate. "sin" entered the world), the text says the council of gods, decided to make one more modification so that we didn't live forever (we'd over run the earth and the rest of the universe in a few thousand years). so the "Way" was cut off to the tree of life. in other words, our dna, was modified so that only some parts regenerated, everything else, had a timer switch. in effect, our bodies were condemned to short life spans like the animals.

so a man or woman is born into "sin" when he/she is born from procreation. there's a whole other line of thought on this related to the moon god sin, who's worship involved his seeming "power" over a woman's ovulation (moon 28 day lunation. menstruation based around 28 day cycle and as you know, a woman can't get pregnant if she doesn't ovulate)

the difference in this example is a virginal or cloned birth, vs. a natural, procreative birth via ovulation, or sin. since the text says jesus was the son of jehovah from a virgin mother, he would've been cloned from jehovah. and since jehovah was also hayah or ayah, who was ea (sumerian enki) you can follow his clone trail from the first passages in the bible and sumerian texts, all the way up to the Last Atum or Last Adam (Last pharaoh).

long story short, it's like really interesting reading when you start to realize it in the backdrop of the rest of the ancient world.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
p.s. for those who don't know the text of genesis well enough to follow what i'm saying, what it is basically showing is two separate adam creations. one creation is males and females, and they are ALL created in the image of elohim (atum), plural words. and they are all called adam. they were an entire race of clones, who did not procreate. there was no eve yet.

the second adam, was a single male from the original clones, who ends up being modified to procreate. it's here where the adamic female is referred to as eve for the first time, precisely because she was different due to the procreative modification of her dna. it's also here where the clue as to how the original clones were created, is explained:. dna was taken from the atum ribs



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You couldnt be more wrong.


Minneapolis Science Facility



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Archirvion
reply to post by kallisti36
 


You couldnt be more wrong.


Wow, what a refutation!


If you have facts to present, do so. Your opinion, though, no matter how much you value it, is not a fact.


Minneapolis Science Facility


What does that even mean? Is the Science Museum running an exhibit on Zeitgeist's lies? Checks the schedule... nope, don't see anything -- lots of stuff about mummies, though, might have to pop in for a visit the next time I'm in the Cities.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



this guy

www.answersingenesis.org...

places the date of the biblical flood at


The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years.


But here’s what was actually happening at that time

en.wikipedia.org...

and for Egypt:


c. 2288 BC – 2224/2194 BC: Pepy II and his mother, Queen Merye-ankhnes, Sixth dynasty of Egypt, is made. It is now at The Brooklyn Museum of Art, New York.

c. 2278 BC: Pharaoh Pepi II starts to rule (other date is 2383 BC).



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Again, what does that have to do with anything? Some guy's fundamentalist calculation of a date coincides with something being created in Egypt which is now in a Brooklyn museum?

Seriously, I assume that you're trying to say something, but I have no idea what it is.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


See I thought the average fundy-mentalist christian believed that the earth is only about 6 thousand years old and believing that can lead to stuff like:

www.theonion.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by adjensen
 


See I thought the average fundy-mentalist christian believed that the earth is only about 6 thousand years old


Well, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, nor do I believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old (as I wrote in this post on an unrelated matter.)

So, again, I fail to see the point of your post as a reply to me suggesting that someone saying "You couldnt be more wrong" isn't evidence of anything. Enlighten me, please.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well you suggested the Egypt thing I just went with that

But thanks for pointing out the “Do you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans” thread, I missed that one



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join