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: 46share:
I refer to the OP as a disgruntled worshipper. It's not easy for people who are religious to be faced with someone telling you your faith is BS but
the fact of the matter is, Zeitgeist even though it has some flaws is more or less correct.
This is like when the child who has always believed in Santa Clause get's told that he doesn't exist.
So to the OP, please don't get upset when someone has told you the Invisible Man doesn't exist. Take it like a Man or Woman and just get on with your life.
Peace!!
This is like when the child who has always believed in Santa Clause get's told that he doesn't exist.
So to the OP, please don't get upset when someone has told you the Invisible Man doesn't exist. Take it like a Man or Woman and just get on with your life.
Peace!!
reply to post by stevcolx
Nice condescension there.
Contrary to popular belief, God is not a bearded man in the sky. Had the Roman Catholics remained connected to the rest of the Church and it's theology and practices they never would have allowed for an artist depiction of the Father in the Cistene Chapel.
Improper religious art rant aside: what did Zeitgeist claim that was true? Your Santa Claus analogy is a straw man and not entirely accurate. Saint Nicholas was a very real saint that had a fun mythology attached to him en.wikipedia.org... An intelligent atheist would make the same claim about Yeshuah, because the majority of secular scholars agree that he did in fact exist. Nevermind that there are more references and historical records of him than Julius Caesar, we want time stamped photos or it never happened. Zeitgeist argues from a minority viewpoint and doesn't do a good job, because much of their claims are patently false.
Osiris was crucified? Nope, cut into pieces
Horus was crucified? Nooooooooooooooooo
Horus was born of a virgin? No, Isis had sex with Osiris' dead body
Dionysus was crucified? No, and double discrediting claim for using a forgery
Mithra was born of a virgin? You got me there, I'm pretty sure no one had sex with that rock
The nativity story is a natural astro phenomenon in which the sun rises in the southern cross and the three stars of Orion's belt point to Sirius? The sun never rises in the southern cross EVAR and you could claim that any of the stars in the sky point to each other. Furthermore the magi are not numbered in the Bible and the Star of Bethlehem isn't described as a natural star like Sirius.
Krishna was born of a virgin? Eighth child
Krishna was crucified? Shot in the foot with an arrow
All of this aside, Zeitgeist and Acharya S dissect information and cut out minutiae separating them from the overall picture so that it fits into a puzzle that doesn't match. Even if half of these claims were true, the parallels between Jesus and the deities in question end there. Many of the mighty deeds attributed to these deities were for their glorification and had no greater theological concepts behind it. Let's say Krishna was born of a virgin, so what? I mean that's cool for him, but what does that do besides make him look cool. Jesus, on the other hand is the logos (word) of God that became man so as to redeem our fallen natures by taking on our human nature. To an all powerful omnipotent being such as YHWH as opposed to a humanistic deity like Krishna, this is a significant drop in stature "he [Yeshuah] was made a little lower than the Elohim (not angels as most bibles put)". Humiliating, but He did it out of love for us. It took from the fall of man to 0 A.D. to accomplish, but He finally established a people righteous enough to bring forth a woman righteous enough to bear the WORD OF GOD in her womb who would give Him the human flesh he would have to redeem. That's pretty profound when you think about it. Now let's look at the Crucifixion. Let's say Osiris was crucified instead of cut into pieces. So, let me finish the dogmatic declaration: Osiris was Crucified and became god of the dead. Again, cool for him. Yeshuah on the other hand faced a long, painful, humiliating death by a distinctly Roman torture device reserved for rebels, traitors, barbarians, and non-citizens in general. He faced this death with absolute foreknowledge and in his death took on the sins of all those born and yet to be born, thus nailing sin to the cross and with it the power of death. He then resurrected from the dead to redeem the flesh of man and prove death could be overcome. What other deity came even close to this? None.
Nice condescension there.
Contrary to popular belief, God is not a bearded man in the sky. Had the Roman Catholics remained connected to the rest of the Church and it's theology and practices they never would have allowed for an artist depiction of the Father in the Cistene Chapel.
Improper religious art rant aside: what did Zeitgeist claim that was true? Your Santa Claus analogy is a straw man and not entirely accurate. Saint Nicholas was a very real saint that had a fun mythology attached to him en.wikipedia.org... An intelligent atheist would make the same claim about Yeshuah, because the majority of secular scholars agree that he did in fact exist. Nevermind that there are more references and historical records of him than Julius Caesar, we want time stamped photos or it never happened. Zeitgeist argues from a minority viewpoint and doesn't do a good job, because much of their claims are patently false.
Osiris was crucified? Nope, cut into pieces
Horus was crucified? Nooooooooooooooooo
Horus was born of a virgin? No, Isis had sex with Osiris' dead body
Dionysus was crucified? No, and double discrediting claim for using a forgery
Mithra was born of a virgin? You got me there, I'm pretty sure no one had sex with that rock
The nativity story is a natural astro phenomenon in which the sun rises in the southern cross and the three stars of Orion's belt point to Sirius? The sun never rises in the southern cross EVAR and you could claim that any of the stars in the sky point to each other. Furthermore the magi are not numbered in the Bible and the Star of Bethlehem isn't described as a natural star like Sirius.
Krishna was born of a virgin? Eighth child
Krishna was crucified? Shot in the foot with an arrow
All of this aside, Zeitgeist and Acharya S dissect information and cut out minutiae separating them from the overall picture so that it fits into a puzzle that doesn't match. Even if half of these claims were true, the parallels between Jesus and the deities in question end there. Many of the mighty deeds attributed to these deities were for their glorification and had no greater theological concepts behind it. Let's say Krishna was born of a virgin, so what? I mean that's cool for him, but what does that do besides make him look cool. Jesus, on the other hand is the logos (word) of God that became man so as to redeem our fallen natures by taking on our human nature. To an all powerful omnipotent being such as YHWH as opposed to a humanistic deity like Krishna, this is a significant drop in stature "he [Yeshuah] was made a little lower than the Elohim (not angels as most bibles put)". Humiliating, but He did it out of love for us. It took from the fall of man to 0 A.D. to accomplish, but He finally established a people righteous enough to bring forth a woman righteous enough to bear the WORD OF GOD in her womb who would give Him the human flesh he would have to redeem. That's pretty profound when you think about it. Now let's look at the Crucifixion. Let's say Osiris was crucified instead of cut into pieces. So, let me finish the dogmatic declaration: Osiris was Crucified and became god of the dead. Again, cool for him. Yeshuah on the other hand faced a long, painful, humiliating death by a distinctly Roman torture device reserved for rebels, traitors, barbarians, and non-citizens in general. He faced this death with absolute foreknowledge and in his death took on the sins of all those born and yet to be born, thus nailing sin to the cross and with it the power of death. He then resurrected from the dead to redeem the flesh of man and prove death could be overcome. What other deity came even close to this? None.
Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
This guy hasn't refuted #. I recently found an old book that was written in 1893 that supports this jesus myth and it was right infront of our eyes the whole time.
I suppose archaeology and understanding of history hasn't developed since then. I can think of several people you might be referring to and I know that they have been debunked as well.
I really hope this post was satirical.
reply to post by kallisti36
I for one appreciate your insight ,and wisdom .
Have never liked their messages..and have always seemed to me far fetched ,manipulating ,and secretly for some other agenda than truth. (much like "The Secret" )
Thankyou ..thankyou for starting this thread.
I for one appreciate your insight ,and wisdom .
Have never liked their messages..and have always seemed to me far fetched ,manipulating ,and secretly for some other agenda than truth. (much like "The Secret" )
Thankyou ..thankyou for starting this thread.
Originally posted by Philoveritas
Get your mythological and historical ignorance in check. First off, ain't no "Ya'hshuah" mentioned in the texts later titled as the Novo Testamentum. Get it straight since we are speaking of a literary character in a Greek text it is only proper to use such literary character's transliterated Koine Greek name; IESOUS, titled CHRISTOS which literally means covered in oil, but is figuratively taken to mean the anointed of God.
I am well aware of this. Iesous is not his original name, it's Ya'hshuah or Yeshuah. The gospels were written in Greek which is a gender based language, thus a masculine name cannot end on an A. The name was altered and an S was added on the end to denote importance. Ya'hshuah is the Aramaic rendering of the Hebrew Yeshuah (translated JAH-Shuah when done straight into English) which means "God saves".
And speaking of Greek literary characters,
There has been a population of Semitic Christians in Yudea for 2,000 years. Don't remove Yeshuah from his roots.
take the example of a Homeric hero, the very title character of the Odyssey, Odysseus. If the epic poem is to be taken with the same faith as later ancient mythological texts, Odysseus performed great feats and went on magical voyages influenced by the gods of the Greeks and such. He was known as Ulysses to the Romans when they attempted to harmonize their myths with those of the Greeks.
So your argument is that the existence of myths proves that all fantastic claims about Yeshuah are myths? The apostles and those who studied under them were tortured and martyred for a story they made up?
For the record I have never bought into half of the stuff from the Achyara S./Zeitgeist camp. But the real argument should be. Which myth constructer should be give the most credit for writing the truth?
Then you missed the point of the thread. This is about debunking Zeitgeist claims which is easy and straightforward, but I have to repeat on this site ad nauseum. Your debate is a long and tedious one that won't end on your part until I produce a timestamped photo from 33 A.D.
Sure the crafters of christianity most definitely incorporated elements of other religious sentiment into their works. Although those who subscribe to the view that Iesous was based on the mysteries religion tend to stretch the interpretation to fit their premise, but do so with far less intellectual dishonesty than any christian apologist.
Minor surface similarities doesn't equal plagarism. I have seen no intellectual honesty from the Zeitgeist crowd
edit on 11-4-2011 by Philoveritas because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by kallisti36
Ok I stand corrected. There are alot of mistakes in Zeitgeist. But there are also alot of truths too.
The fact of the matter still stands. GOD does not exist. Never has and never will. This whole Islamic, Judaic, Christianity story books detail symbolism. It's all based on Paganism. Worship of the Sun, Moon and Stars!!
You can slam Zeitgeist all u want and clap yourself on the back for a job well done but some of it is correct especially when talking about the sun. That's all God is. A symbolic reference to the sun!!
Ok I stand corrected. There are alot of mistakes in Zeitgeist. But there are also alot of truths too.
The fact of the matter still stands. GOD does not exist. Never has and never will. This whole Islamic, Judaic, Christianity story books detail symbolism. It's all based on Paganism. Worship of the Sun, Moon and Stars!!
You can slam Zeitgeist all u want and clap yourself on the back for a job well done but some of it is correct especially when talking about the sun. That's all God is. A symbolic reference to the sun!!
reply to post by stevcolx
In fact watch this George Carlin vid. He's right on the button!
Oh and this great one too!
In fact watch this George Carlin vid. He's right on the button!
Oh and this great one too!
edit on 26/5/2011 by stevcolx because: Added vid
Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by stevcolx
Osiris was crucified? Nope, cut into pieces
Horus was crucified? Nooooooooooooooooo
Horus was born of a virgin? No, Isis had sex with Osiris' dead body
Dionysus was crucified? No, and double discrediting claim for using a forgery
Mithra was born of a virgin? You got me there, I'm pretty sure no one had sex with that rock
The nativity story is a natural astro phenomenon in which the sun rises in the southern cross and the three stars of Orion's belt point to Sirius? The sun never rises in the southern cross EVAR and you could claim that any of the stars in the sky point to each other. Furthermore the magi are not numbered in the Bible and the Star of Bethlehem isn't described as a natural star like Sirius.
Krishna was born of a virgin? Eighth child
Krishna was crucified? Shot in the foot with an arrow
Some Info on Isis from the book "The Secrete Teachings or all ages" (1924)
This Egyptian deity under many names appears as the principle of natural fecundity among nearly all the religions of the ancient world. She was known as the goddess with ten thousand appellations and was metamorphosed by Christianity into the Virgin Mary, for Isis, although she gave birth to all living things--chief among them the Sun--still remained a virgin, according to the legendary accounts
Another Theory on the death of Osiris from the book "Egyptian Myth and Legend" (1907)
So it happened that one after another entered the chest on that fateful night, until it seemed that no man could be found to win it for himself. Then Osiris came forward. He lay down within the chest, and he filled it in every part. But dearly was his triumph won in that dark hour which was his hour of doom. Ere he could raise his body, the evil followers of Set sprang suddenly forward and shut down the lid, which they nailed fast and soldered with lead. So the richly decorated chest became the coffin of the good king Osiris, from whom departed the breath of life.
They are 2 off the top of my head that don't match your theory. We are looking at stories wrapped in myth and legend that are 1000's of years old and have been retold 100's if not 1000's of times with the story tellers own spin or interpretation. There is no one out there that can prove who is 100% right or wrong.
reply to post by wycky
Manly P. Hall is a theosophist and therefor not a credible source. They are dishonest magpies who piece together fact and fiction to turn a mosaic of a king into that of a dog or vice versa.
As for your second post, I don't know what point you were trying to make.
Your third point is false, because all gospel fragments since the first century are within 90% agreement with eachother and 100% agreement on major points. So, you can't toss around that: "The church edited the Bible at Nicaea and added stuff and and burned books that they didn't like" card, because it's patently false.
Manly P. Hall is a theosophist and therefor not a credible source. They are dishonest magpies who piece together fact and fiction to turn a mosaic of a king into that of a dog or vice versa.
As for your second post, I don't know what point you were trying to make.
Your third point is false, because all gospel fragments since the first century are within 90% agreement with eachother and 100% agreement on major points. So, you can't toss around that: "The church edited the Bible at Nicaea and added stuff and and burned books that they didn't like" card, because it's patently false.
Originally posted by stevcolx
GOD does not exist. Never has and never will.
Alert the presses! This genius has done what no one ever did before -- prove a negative!
Okay, Ace, let's see your proof that "God does not exist." The world awaits evidence of your absolute conclusion, based on non-absolute data.
reply to post by stevcolx
I won't argue that Christianity began to use the sun as a metaphor for God and Christ. It's poetry embedded in old liturgical structure, but you can see it's beginnings in Byzantium a full 300 years later. I see it, and I am not slightly perturbed by it, because it's not the source, it's just poetic structure.
There is ZERO sun worship in Judaism or Christianity, it is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (see Ezekiel, I don't remember the verse).
As for the George Carlin videos: I don't care. He is a comedian not a scientist, historian, or philosopher. He is also a very disturbing comedian at that. There's an often overlooked facet of nihilism and that is the nihilism of laughter. This is the idea that nothing is sacred, there is no point to anything, everything is absurd, and you should just laugh and take the pi$$ out of everything until you die. Laugh about how smart and enlightened you are all you want, but don't expect us all to be so impressed by the man's wit.
I won't argue that Christianity began to use the sun as a metaphor for God and Christ. It's poetry embedded in old liturgical structure, but you can see it's beginnings in Byzantium a full 300 years later. I see it, and I am not slightly perturbed by it, because it's not the source, it's just poetic structure.
There is ZERO sun worship in Judaism or Christianity, it is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (see Ezekiel, I don't remember the verse).
As for the George Carlin videos: I don't care. He is a comedian not a scientist, historian, or philosopher. He is also a very disturbing comedian at that. There's an often overlooked facet of nihilism and that is the nihilism of laughter. This is the idea that nothing is sacred, there is no point to anything, everything is absurd, and you should just laugh and take the pi$$ out of everything until you die. Laugh about how smart and enlightened you are all you want, but don't expect us all to be so impressed by the man's wit.
edit on 26-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason
given)
Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by wycky
Manly P. Hall is a theosophist and therefor not a credible source. They are dishonest magpies who piece together fact and fiction to turn a mosaic of a king into that of a dog or vice versa.
A lot of the information in the Secrete teachings of all ages is referenced from other books or sources of information, Manly has put it all together and it is a great read and I think it is a great source of information and knowledge, anyone with a strong belief's in Christianity will think its a load of garbage because they are not open to any other opinions.
As for your second post, I don't know what point you were trying to make.
My point is Zeitgeist claims Osiris was crucified, your source claims he was cut into pieces, my source claims he was trapped in a coffin and suffocated. 3 Sources, 3 stories who is right?
Your third point is false, because all gospel fragments since the first century are within 90% agreement with eachother and 100% agreement on major points. So, you can't toss around that: "The church edited the Bible at Nicaea and added stuff and and burned books that they didn't like" card, because it's patently false.
The Bible was edited at Nicaea I learnt that Studying Ancient History in high school. I also read that in the 1500's - 1600's (maybe earlier) (ill have to check those dates) that the church band the writing of the bible in any language but Latin, so what was written can be monitored and have the "correct" information. Bible's that were not written in Latin were hidden or destroyed by the church.
Also the Church is well known for destroying knowledge they don't want you know
Also the Church is well known for destroying knowledge they don't want you know
Oh your right about that. The Christian Church is one of the most corrupt institutions on this planet. You can't trust the Church. You can't trust any of the bigwigs of the Church such as the Pope.
The Vatican is well known as you say for destroying knowledge and hiding knowledge of the Human Race's true origin.
How can anyone trust an institution that worships and teaches both good and evil. By that I mean Phonecian sun Gods such as Nimrod and Barati. They all lead to the Illuminati. Which is part of the church and the Vatican. It's all a scam and a very well controlled one at that. The Pope and co do their teachings of God yet worship Lucifer and Devil Gods. What the hell is that all about?
The true origins of the Human Race has been methodically hidden and destroyed by the church and replaced by this scam they call God. Like I said earlier it's all sun worship. Look at Christmas and Easter. They are Pagan Festivals with the stories changed to suit the guise of Christianity. If your a Christian you are controlled and scammed. If you wish to be like that it is up to u. I want to know where we as a race came from and so far those religions have given me no answers. They were developed to deceive and control and the Church has done it's best to make sure that happens!!
edit on 27/5/2011 by stevcolx because: Text added
Originally posted by wycky
The Bible was edited at Nicaea I learnt that Studying Ancient History in high school.
Did your high school use The Da Vinci Code as a textbook?
The Bible was NOT "edited at Nicaea". There is a plethora of evidence regarding what WAS discussed at Nicaea, and it had nothing to do with the Bible. If you spent two minutes researching the actual evidence, rather than lame conspiracy theories that are complete fiction, you would know that.
If your Ancient History teacher taught that the Bible was "edited at Nicaea", they should be fired immediately, as one would expect for a Mathematics teacher who taught that 2+2=5 or that pi=3.8
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by stevcolx
GOD does not exist. Never has and never will.
Alert the presses! This genius has done what no one ever did before -- prove a negative!
Okay, Ace, let's see your proof that "God does not exist." The world awaits evidence of your absolute conclusion, based on non-absolute data.
Ok prove that God does exist! And don't base it on the fictional Bible book!!
reply to post by kallisti36
Do you see how you are denying the obvious? ''there is some sort of sun metaphorism, but it means nothing'' Please dude, you really have nowhere to run. ''poetic structure?''
Sun worship was forbidden for a reason! It was about sucking ''true knowledge'' out of the public conscious and replace it with bogus.
But a religious nut like you will never and never be able to understand this, because you are still defending your cause and that the is perpetuation of religion.
I won't argue that Christianity began to use the sun as a metaphor for God and Christ. It's poetry embedded in old liturgical structure, but you can see it's beginnings in Byzantium a full 300 years later. I see it, and I am not slightly perturbed by it, because it's not the source, it's just poetic structure. There is ZERO sun worship in Judaism or Christianity, it is explicitly forbidden in the Bible (see Ezekiel, I don't remember the verse).
Do you see how you are denying the obvious? ''there is some sort of sun metaphorism, but it means nothing'' Please dude, you really have nowhere to run. ''poetic structure?''
Sun worship was forbidden for a reason! It was about sucking ''true knowledge'' out of the public conscious and replace it with bogus.
But a religious nut like you will never and never be able to understand this, because you are still defending your cause and that the is perpetuation of religion.
reply to post by wycky
Remember, we're not debating if these things really happened or not. We're not debating if the gods were real or not. What we're debating about is what the people BELIEVED at the time. To do that you need sources written by those people that say what they believed in. The sources that we have show that people believed that Osiris/Horus' story was like your source says and ours and nothing like what the Zeitgeist people claim. Both of our sources are the same source actually.
Our source says that he was put in a coffin and then later taken out and cut into pieces. It's just a two part story and the guy was just skipping the first part. But it's all one story.
The Zeitgeist people are not a legit source however. They don't have evidence, they misquote sources, and sometimes they just plain fabricate stuff. First of all their whole premise is wrong and none of the claims they make about what people believed about religion are true. To top it off they're comparing all these "sun" gods to Jesus, but the problem is they're not even sun gods.
Osiris was the god of death and the afterlife and Horus was the god of the sky. Ra, yes I repeat Ra was the sun god. We should be comparing Ra to Jesus if we want to prove sun worship is involved. Nowhere do they even bring Ra up. The fact that Zeitgeist didn't even get this very basic thing right should tell you how much they know about Egyptology. They know nothing. Talking about sun gods and not mentioning Ra is like talking about Christianity and just forgetting to mention Jesus. You'd have to be an idiot.
And this Acharya S, where all these claims in Zeitgeist come from, claims to be able to read hieroglyphs (which she can't) lol and yet doesn't even know that Ra is the sun god? That's like if I claimed I was a biblical scholar and knew Hebrew, but then sat around for an hour and talked to you about how Moses got all the animals on the boat and how Noah led the Israelites out of Egypt lol. Basic first grader mistake. It was Noah's Ark with the animals, not Moses with the Ark of the Covenant.
Obviously you would see I was not in fact a biblical scholar if I didn't even know the difference between Moses and Noah, yet she makes the same mistake with Horus and Ra over and over again and nobody cares lol. They still think she's a master at Egyptology and hieroglyphs except every time she interprets them they say something completely different.
Then she plays dirty tricks like when she says Isis was called Isis-Meri just so she can make a comparison to Mary in the Bible. However, when it's pointed out that Isis was never called Isis-Meri she just says well no Meri means beloved! lol, which it doesn't.
So you see, Isis was loved, so she was Isis-Meri and all the other gods were loved too! They were ALL MERI lol. The problem is if you do that then Meri is no longer a name, it becomes a description instead. It'd be no different than saying Isis was short or tall. Her whole premise relies on Meri being a name to show that they had the same name. Then Zeitgeist changes the definition on you with slight of hand so that Meri isn't a name anymore, it's a description and therefore her premise falls through. Let me show how.
According to her logic Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are the same person. They're both beloved by their fans so you could say that Justin Bieber is beloved and therefore you could call him Justin Bieber-Meri. Also you could say that Lady Gaga is beloved and therefore you could call her Lady Gaga-Meri. Therefore since both their "names" are Meri, and Lady Gaga was here first, Justin Bieber doesn't exist.
Now while, I do wish that were true lol, the problem is that Isis was never called Meri in the first place and Meri doesn't mean beloved and even if it did, she's just playing a word game. The only people that buy it are people too stupid to catch the trick.
Same thing with Horus being born on the 25th. Which Jesus wasn't even born on the 25th btw. That's just where they moved it when the sun worshipers got a hold of the religion. But again that's the sun worshipers copying Christianity, not the other way around like the Zeitgeist people claim. Christianity wants to be different, the sun worshipers keep trying to make it like their religion. Zeitgeist is trying to do this again. Turn Christianity into something it wasn't.
When called out on it Acharya S changed her story to claim that Horus was actually born EVERYDAY and not just on the 25th and that neither Osiris or Horus were actually crucified. That's right, they changed their story. She no longer claims they were crucified.
But she claims that Horus was the sun (wrong, Ra was the sun) and so he was born everyday! So, see he was born on the 25th! and 26th and 27th! and the on April fools! Every day of the year. Do you see the trick? Even if it was true, it wouldn't mean anything.
The whole point of saying he was born on the 25th was to make a spooky coincidence to make Jesus sound like Horus. But if Horus was born everyday then it doesn't matter what day Jesus was born, he had to be born on SOME day. It's like saying that Jesus had hair and I have hair, so we're the same person lol. Everyone has to be born on SOME day. All of a sudden the spooky coincidence is gone now and so their initial premise totally falls apart.
Also, at one point when asked for a source to prove her claims Acharya S the Zeitgeist lady, cited a children's VHS tape on Amazon lol. It should be obvious at this point that this lady is no serious scholar and does not know what she's talking about. A serious scholar would never cite a children's video as an ancient pre-Christian source or any source at all lol. She may as well quote Morpheus in the Matrix to prove that the universe is a simulation and is ran by machines! lol.
And typically when she does cite a legit source, if you look it up, you go read it only to find that it says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she claims it said. It's just absurd, but people fall for it.
Eventually in a video I will post she just gives up and says, well the reason she has no evidence is because it was all destroyed and you have to understand that ....... Wait for it!
She says that "These are mysteries! They're mysteries! These things aren't written down you know! They're mysteries!" LOL. If there's no evidence how did she find out about it? Obviously there must be evidence somewhere? Where is it! Oh it's a mystery!
Can you imagine if a cop arrested you and when the judge asked for evidence the cop said, well I don't have any! You have to understand that these things are mysteries! They're mysteries! lol, They're not written down anywhere, it's a mystery! But I can piece it together! I know what happened! Okay? How? Pieced it together from what? It doesn't have to be a mystery if you just show us the evidence? No, can't do that, it's a mystery! lol. You wouldn't think much of that cop would you? Yet people take the same BS from this Zeitgeist lady and let them cram it right down their throat. Come on lady, if you really have evidence, show it to us and it doesn't have to be a mystery anymore!
Part 4
You can hear what I'm talking about here at about 7:35 but I recommend the whole 10 part thing. I mean if you want to buy what they're saying and fall for it, go ahead I guess. But I guess it's all just a mystery to me!
Also your council of Nicaea thing is a misconception. There's plenty of evidence that the Bible was already well formed 150 years before the council ever took place and that the council was for other purposes.en.wikipedia.org...
All people did is copy the Bible over and over. We have like 30,000 manuscript copies in different languages that pretty much all agree with each other in story. Compare that to say, the 40 copies we have of Aristotle's work? It's not like there was just one source someone could censor. The Bible was decentralized and copied by everyone, just like the way hackers pirate stuff now. Sometimes you only get parts of the movie. Sometimes you get a crap copy with errors, but over all, they're all from the same movie and all say the same thing.
You can't censor that without someone finding out. Like if I downloaded a censored copy of a movie, the uncensored version would still be on a torrent site somewhere and eventually someone would download it or find it and say hey look! It's been censored! The original didn't say that! Why doesn't that happen with the Bible?
Virtually all errors are copy errors. That's why. It's not very news worthy to hear, someone misspelled baptist in manuscript 17,434! lol. It's not something someone did intentionally. Even if someone did edit it and change it, the other manuscripts would show us what had been changed.
What did you expect to find anyway? A whole new Gospel that says Jesus didn't exist? lol, You're never going to find anything like that because nobody would write or include a Gospel, a biblical work, in the Bible if they didn't believe in Jesus. All your going to find is a bunch more people writing the same stuff, on a moral level anyway, that the Bible already says, and that's to follow Jesus. What did you think the hypothetical "non-edited" version would say that would change anything? That Jesus was a teapot lol?
The NT is by definition a collection of books written by people that believe in Jesus and the OT is by definition a collection of books written by people that believed in Yahweh. You're never going to find some magical un-edited version of the Bible that shows that the people didn't believe in God or didn't believe in Jesus. You have to look to to some other non-biblical source to find that kind of thing.
My point is Zeitgeist claims Osiris was crucified, your source claims he was cut into pieces, my source claims he was trapped in a coffin and suffocated. 3 Sources, 3 stories who is right?
Remember, we're not debating if these things really happened or not. We're not debating if the gods were real or not. What we're debating about is what the people BELIEVED at the time. To do that you need sources written by those people that say what they believed in. The sources that we have show that people believed that Osiris/Horus' story was like your source says and ours and nothing like what the Zeitgeist people claim. Both of our sources are the same source actually.
Our source says that he was put in a coffin and then later taken out and cut into pieces. It's just a two part story and the guy was just skipping the first part. But it's all one story.
The Zeitgeist people are not a legit source however. They don't have evidence, they misquote sources, and sometimes they just plain fabricate stuff. First of all their whole premise is wrong and none of the claims they make about what people believed about religion are true. To top it off they're comparing all these "sun" gods to Jesus, but the problem is they're not even sun gods.
Osiris was the god of death and the afterlife and Horus was the god of the sky. Ra, yes I repeat Ra was the sun god. We should be comparing Ra to Jesus if we want to prove sun worship is involved. Nowhere do they even bring Ra up. The fact that Zeitgeist didn't even get this very basic thing right should tell you how much they know about Egyptology. They know nothing. Talking about sun gods and not mentioning Ra is like talking about Christianity and just forgetting to mention Jesus. You'd have to be an idiot.
And this Acharya S, where all these claims in Zeitgeist come from, claims to be able to read hieroglyphs (which she can't) lol and yet doesn't even know that Ra is the sun god? That's like if I claimed I was a biblical scholar and knew Hebrew, but then sat around for an hour and talked to you about how Moses got all the animals on the boat and how Noah led the Israelites out of Egypt lol. Basic first grader mistake. It was Noah's Ark with the animals, not Moses with the Ark of the Covenant.
Obviously you would see I was not in fact a biblical scholar if I didn't even know the difference between Moses and Noah, yet she makes the same mistake with Horus and Ra over and over again and nobody cares lol. They still think she's a master at Egyptology and hieroglyphs except every time she interprets them they say something completely different.
Then she plays dirty tricks like when she says Isis was called Isis-Meri just so she can make a comparison to Mary in the Bible. However, when it's pointed out that Isis was never called Isis-Meri she just says well no Meri means beloved! lol, which it doesn't.
So you see, Isis was loved, so she was Isis-Meri and all the other gods were loved too! They were ALL MERI lol. The problem is if you do that then Meri is no longer a name, it becomes a description instead. It'd be no different than saying Isis was short or tall. Her whole premise relies on Meri being a name to show that they had the same name. Then Zeitgeist changes the definition on you with slight of hand so that Meri isn't a name anymore, it's a description and therefore her premise falls through. Let me show how.
According to her logic Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are the same person. They're both beloved by their fans so you could say that Justin Bieber is beloved and therefore you could call him Justin Bieber-Meri. Also you could say that Lady Gaga is beloved and therefore you could call her Lady Gaga-Meri. Therefore since both their "names" are Meri, and Lady Gaga was here first, Justin Bieber doesn't exist.
Now while, I do wish that were true lol, the problem is that Isis was never called Meri in the first place and Meri doesn't mean beloved and even if it did, she's just playing a word game. The only people that buy it are people too stupid to catch the trick.
Same thing with Horus being born on the 25th. Which Jesus wasn't even born on the 25th btw. That's just where they moved it when the sun worshipers got a hold of the religion. But again that's the sun worshipers copying Christianity, not the other way around like the Zeitgeist people claim. Christianity wants to be different, the sun worshipers keep trying to make it like their religion. Zeitgeist is trying to do this again. Turn Christianity into something it wasn't.
When called out on it Acharya S changed her story to claim that Horus was actually born EVERYDAY and not just on the 25th and that neither Osiris or Horus were actually crucified. That's right, they changed their story. She no longer claims they were crucified.
But she claims that Horus was the sun (wrong, Ra was the sun) and so he was born everyday! So, see he was born on the 25th! and 26th and 27th! and the on April fools! Every day of the year. Do you see the trick? Even if it was true, it wouldn't mean anything.
The whole point of saying he was born on the 25th was to make a spooky coincidence to make Jesus sound like Horus. But if Horus was born everyday then it doesn't matter what day Jesus was born, he had to be born on SOME day. It's like saying that Jesus had hair and I have hair, so we're the same person lol. Everyone has to be born on SOME day. All of a sudden the spooky coincidence is gone now and so their initial premise totally falls apart.
Also, at one point when asked for a source to prove her claims Acharya S the Zeitgeist lady, cited a children's VHS tape on Amazon lol. It should be obvious at this point that this lady is no serious scholar and does not know what she's talking about. A serious scholar would never cite a children's video as an ancient pre-Christian source or any source at all lol. She may as well quote Morpheus in the Matrix to prove that the universe is a simulation and is ran by machines! lol.
And typically when she does cite a legit source, if you look it up, you go read it only to find that it says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what she claims it said. It's just absurd, but people fall for it.
Eventually in a video I will post she just gives up and says, well the reason she has no evidence is because it was all destroyed and you have to understand that ....... Wait for it!
She says that "These are mysteries! They're mysteries! These things aren't written down you know! They're mysteries!" LOL. If there's no evidence how did she find out about it? Obviously there must be evidence somewhere? Where is it! Oh it's a mystery!
Can you imagine if a cop arrested you and when the judge asked for evidence the cop said, well I don't have any! You have to understand that these things are mysteries! They're mysteries! lol, They're not written down anywhere, it's a mystery! But I can piece it together! I know what happened! Okay? How? Pieced it together from what? It doesn't have to be a mystery if you just show us the evidence? No, can't do that, it's a mystery! lol. You wouldn't think much of that cop would you? Yet people take the same BS from this Zeitgeist lady and let them cram it right down their throat. Come on lady, if you really have evidence, show it to us and it doesn't have to be a mystery anymore!
Part 4
You can hear what I'm talking about here at about 7:35 but I recommend the whole 10 part thing. I mean if you want to buy what they're saying and fall for it, go ahead I guess. But I guess it's all just a mystery to me!
Also your council of Nicaea thing is a misconception. There's plenty of evidence that the Bible was already well formed 150 years before the council ever took place and that the council was for other purposes.en.wikipedia.org...
All people did is copy the Bible over and over. We have like 30,000 manuscript copies in different languages that pretty much all agree with each other in story. Compare that to say, the 40 copies we have of Aristotle's work? It's not like there was just one source someone could censor. The Bible was decentralized and copied by everyone, just like the way hackers pirate stuff now. Sometimes you only get parts of the movie. Sometimes you get a crap copy with errors, but over all, they're all from the same movie and all say the same thing.
You can't censor that without someone finding out. Like if I downloaded a censored copy of a movie, the uncensored version would still be on a torrent site somewhere and eventually someone would download it or find it and say hey look! It's been censored! The original didn't say that! Why doesn't that happen with the Bible?
Virtually all errors are copy errors. That's why. It's not very news worthy to hear, someone misspelled baptist in manuscript 17,434! lol. It's not something someone did intentionally. Even if someone did edit it and change it, the other manuscripts would show us what had been changed.
What did you expect to find anyway? A whole new Gospel that says Jesus didn't exist? lol, You're never going to find anything like that because nobody would write or include a Gospel, a biblical work, in the Bible if they didn't believe in Jesus. All your going to find is a bunch more people writing the same stuff, on a moral level anyway, that the Bible already says, and that's to follow Jesus. What did you think the hypothetical "non-edited" version would say that would change anything? That Jesus was a teapot lol?
The NT is by definition a collection of books written by people that believe in Jesus and the OT is by definition a collection of books written by people that believed in Yahweh. You're never going to find some magical un-edited version of the Bible that shows that the people didn't believe in God or didn't believe in Jesus. You have to look to to some other non-biblical source to find that kind of thing.
edit on 27-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by stevcolx
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by stevcolx
GOD does not exist. Never has and never will.
Alert the presses! This genius has done what no one ever did before -- prove a negative!
Okay, Ace, let's see your proof that "God does not exist." The world awaits evidence of your absolute conclusion, based on non-absolute data.
Ok prove that God does exist! And don't base it on the fictional Bible book!!
That's not the same thing, and I'm still waiting for you to prove your negative. You are quoted as saying "God does not exist."
Prove it or admit that you cannot.
(Hint: you cannot.)
Originally posted by stevcolx
Also the Church is well known for destroying knowledge they don't want you know
Oh your right about that. The Christian Church is one of the most corrupt institutions on this planet. You can't trust the Church. You can't trust any of the bigwigs of the Church such as the Pope.
The Vatican is well known as you say for destroying knowledge and hiding knowledge of the Human Race's true origin.
I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Roman Catholic Church was Orthodox for 1,000 years until the West's theology and education fell apart (see fillioque controversy) and the Pope claimed universal supremacy. Everything after that: the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, reformation, counter reformation were all in the west. The East which included all of the most important patriarchates: Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria remained Orthodox and took no part in any of Rome's garbage.