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: 47
78
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


You are taking a later addition brought on by Hellenistic influence and conveniently claiming it is the source of a religion to disclaim it. This is a ridiculous double standard. I guess anti-Christians with axes to grind aren't held to the same standards of truth as religious nuts.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wycky


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



I seriously fear for the state of our education system, but I'm not surprised. The council of Nicaea was called to decide between trinitarianism and arianism and NOTHING ELSE. Constantine wanted the endless squabbling to come to an end, because he in his early Christian years did not know what to believe regarding this (his mother was an arian). It was a collegiate debate and Constantine merely presided and took no part in the debate (because he wouldn't have known what he was talking about). Even afterwards, I'm not sure Constantine was Trinitarian seeing as he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia who was an Arian Bishop Even after trinitarianism was established the Arians still had numbers and persecuted trinitarians like St. Athanasius until the end of his life ("Athanasius Contra Mundum"). The four canonical gospels are the only ones supported by Church Fathers of Apostolic succession from the first centuries such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (Born AD. 35 Died AD. 108) and St. Polycarp (69 – 155) who were from Antioch where the disciples were first called Christians and studied under John the apostle himself (and maybe Peter).

Tell your high school history teacher that Dan Brown isn't a source:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.christian-history.org...
www.piousfabrications.com...
edit on 27-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I am not anti-christian, or anti religion.

However the main stories in the major religions are nothing but a retelling. It is so obvious.

The only way you manage to escape this is by calling it ''poetic''



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I am not anti-christian, or anti religion.

However the main stories in the major religions are nothing but a retelling. It is so obvious.

The only way you manage to escape this is by calling it ''poetic''

I can't find a single strong parallel to Yeshuah of Nazareth in any religion. Most scholars would agree that he was at least a historical Messiah claimant. All of the canonical gospels were written during the first century except maybe John which at the latest was written at the turn of the second and all canonical gospels show inclusive knowledge of Jewish life, customs, and factions prior to 70 A.D. These were first hand accounts and were often described as the "memoirs of the apostles" by early Church Fathers.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
My hypothesis is the leaders of the Roman state decided to cement their power by creating a catholic (universal or general) religion, to do this they incorporated as many archetypes and themes as possible so as to gather in as many different belief systems in as possible (those who didn’t get with the program where persecuted i.e. the Jews are a good example but so are the many other pagan religions that existed in Europe at that time)

This is why there are significant pagan dates associated with christianity (Christmas/Easter) and why the holy Roman catholic church built many of its places of worship over existing pagan religious sites

Its also why such things as the council of nicea had to be convened so as to get the story straight – to work out what it was exactly everybody was supposed to believe

Here’s an example archetype used

life-death-rebirth or dying-and-rising or resurrection archetypes
en.wikipedia.org...


a god who is born, suffers death or a death-like experience, passes through a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include the ancient Near Eastern and Greek deities Baal[1] , Melqart[2] , Adonis[3] , Eshmun[4], Tammuz, [5] Asclepius, Orpheus, as well as Mithras[citation needed], Krishna, Osiris[6], Jesus, Zalmoxis, Dionysus,[7] and Odin. Female examples are Inanna, also known as Ishtar, whose cult dates to 4000 BCE, and Persephone, the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, whose cult may date to 1700 BCE as the unnamed goddess worshiped in Crete


here’s a good one:
en.wikipedia.org...

Joseph took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.(chapter LXXVIII).

Wait wasn’t Mithras born from a rock!
And
en.wikipedia.org...

According to some scholars, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is built over a cave that was originally a shrine to Adonis-Tammuz. The Church Father Jerome, who died in Bethlehem in 420, reports in addition that the holy cave was at one point consecrated by the heathen to the worship of Adonis, and a pleasant sacred grove planted before it, to wipe out the memory of Jesus. Modern mythologists, however, reverse the supposition, insisting that the cult of Adonis-Tammuz originated the shrine and that it was the Christians who took it over, substituting the worship of their own god.[12]



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
My hypothesis is the leaders of the Roman state decided to cement their power by creating a catholic (universal or general) religion, to do this they incorporated as many archetypes and themes as possible so as to gather in as many different belief systems in as possible (those who didn’t get with the program where persecuted i.e. the Jews are a good example but so are the many other pagan religions that existed in Europe at that time)

This is why there are significant pagan dates associated with christianity (Christmas/Easter) and why the holy Roman catholic church built many of its places of worship over existing pagan religious sites

This would make sense if we didn't have writings from 300 years before Christianity became the state religion of Rome. Even then it wouldn't make sense, because Rome was a decaying metropolis in the west during the "Golden Age" of Christianity (I disagree with many fellow Orthodox on how great this time was). Byzantium was by and large a Greek Empire. Yes Christmas day was a Pagan holiday that was reincorporated as Christian to convert pagans. Pascha or Easter as it is called in the west, is only as pagan as the second name and when the second one is calculated to be. You see, Pascha, unlike "Easter" is actually calculated to ALWAYS be after the Jewish Passover (root of Pascha) unlike Easter which seems to be calculated independently from the Biblical events (Yeshuah was crucified on Passover or the day before).



Its also why such things as the council of nicea had to be convened so as to get the story straight – to work out what it was exactly everybody was supposed to believe

This statement is true (minus the condescension) but is unrelated to the following statement. Nicaea was called to end the debate between Arians and Trinitarians to establish unity in the Church. Even after Nicaea, it wasn't enforced, in fact quite the opposite. Constantine's successor was an Arian and exiled many Trinitarians such as St. Athanasius who spent most of his life in exile. Trinitarianism was finally decided on by the unified Church of Christ through study and prayer and gradually phased out Arianism.



life-death-rebirth or dying-and-rising or resurrection archetypes
en.wikipedia.org...


a god who is born, suffers death or a death-like experience, passes through a phase in the underworld among the dead, and is subsequently reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include the ancient Near Eastern and Greek deities Baal[1] , Melqart[2] , Adonis[3] , Eshmun[4], Tammuz, [5] Asclepius, Orpheus, as well as Mithras[citation needed], Krishna, Osiris[6], Jesus, Zalmoxis, Dionysus,[7] and Odin. Female examples are Inanna, also known as Ishtar, whose cult dates to 4000 BCE, and Persephone, the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, whose cult may date to 1700 BCE as the unnamed goddess worshiped in Crete


I am well aware of Tammuz and other life/death cycle deities who are the ones truly personified in the rising and setting of the sun. Yeshuah is not one of them. He died once so as to conquer death, he does not repeatedly die.



here’s a good one:
en.wikipedia.org...

Joseph took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.(chapter LXXVIII).

Wait wasn’t Mithras born from a rock!
And
en.wikipedia.org...

According to some scholars, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is built over a cave that was originally a shrine to Adonis-Tammuz. The Church Father Jerome, who died in Bethlehem in 420, reports in addition that the holy cave was at one point consecrated by the heathen to the worship of Adonis, and a pleasant sacred grove planted before it, to wipe out the memory of Jesus. Modern mythologists, however, reverse the supposition, insisting that the cult of Adonis-Tammuz originated the shrine and that it was the Christians who took it over, substituting the worship of their own god.[12]


Yep, Mithra was born out of a rock in a cave. Yeshuah on the other hand was born from a Virgin woman so that the Logos of YHVH could take on human flesh. Also, the "modern mythologist" reference doesn't say WHY they believe the reverse, so anti-Christian bias can be the surmised reason. Also, there is a very conspicuous [who?] caption after that vague "according to some scholars" on the wiki page.

You would be surprised by the archaeological accuracy of St. Helena's findings such as the Holy Sepulcher and the Cave of the Nativity. It was discovered by archaeologists that not only is the Holy Sepulcher in the right spot, but the tombs inside can be dated directly to the 1st century (Yeshuah was placed in a "new tomb"). In order to get to this tomb, St. Helena had to remove a temple to Venus much like the shrine to Tammuz in Bethlehem. How did she know? Maybe because there have been Christians in Yudea for 2,000 years who might have remembered where their LORD was born and crucified! The cave of the nativity is also testified to by St. Justin Martyr and other Pre-Hellenized Christian Church Fathers. The fact that St. Justin Martyr stuck to this story despite parallels to Mithra (charges being tossed around for 1,700 years) proves his certainty that later similarities were pagan/satanic imitations and the temples to pagan gods at these sights were usurpers.

www.sacred-destinations.com...

edit on 28-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Also check out the criticism to your achetype theory:


Criticism Tryggve Mettinger argues that there is a scholarly consensus that the category is inappropriate.[11] The chief criticism charges it with reductionism, insofar as it subsumes a range of disparate myths under a single category and ignores important distinctions. Marcel Detienne argues that it risks making Christianity the standard by which all religion is judged, since death and resurrection are more central to Christianity than many other faiths.[12] Jonathan Z. Smith, a scholar of comparative religions, writes the category is "largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts."[13] Beginning with an overview of the Athenian ritual of growing and withering herb gardens at the Adonia festival, Detienne suggests that rather than being a stand-in for crops in general (and therefore the cycle of death and rebirth), these herbs (and Adonis) were part of a complex of associations in the Greek mind that centered on spices. These associations included seduction, trickery, gourmandise, and the anxieties of childbirth. From his point of view, Adonis's death is only one datum among the many that must be used to analyze the festival, the myth, and the god.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Ok guys and girls answer me this. Why has the belief in God only been around for about 5 or 6 thousand years? Why was God not worshipped by people greater than 6 thousand years ago. Why did the Aboriginies of Austrailia, the Japanese of long ago, Chinese of long ago, Indians of long ago, Zulu tribes in Africa (still to this day), North American Indians, Mayans etc not worship God but instead worship the Star Gods aka the Annunaki. Of course not all called them the Annunaki like the Indians (Pakistani type) called them the Nagas. Other people referred to them as serpent brothers and similar metaphors relating to reptiles and snakes.

Why then was God not recognised as the creator but the Annunaki were worshipped as the creators???



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stevcolx
 


Have you read the Book of Enoch or Genesis 6 of the Bible? This stuff has been covered already. The Fallen Angels, the Watchers, Grigori, Reptillians, Annunaki whatever you want to call them came down and made hybrid giant monstrous children (nephilim) with the daughters of men. They taught mankind how to make war, build magnificent monuments, and sorcery. They set themselves up as gods and they and their children brought mankind to their knees. Then the true God YHVH cast them into Tartarus a.k.a. the pit or the outer darkness (one of those words erroneously transcribed as "hell" in the Bible) and flooded the world to undo the damage caused by the Grigori, the nephilim, and mankind gone astray. "There were giants on the Earth in those days and also after that" the Nephilim weren't entirely eradicated and must have survived the flood somehow, or perhaps the Grigori continued to make them somehow. The "after that" is a mystery. At any rate I think much of these answers can be found in Enoch and Jubilees (also known as "Little Genesis").

Religion has been around for at least 11,000 years according to recent finds and the oldest religions center around: A great spirit (Semitic people and some Native Americans), Animism, and the worship of very powerful, but oddly very human Gods and demigods with a sophisticated hierarchy and set of allegiances. I believe the first group to be those who worshipped YHVH the living God in some form. The animists have no real conspiracy behind them besides the ones who worshiped serpents, though according to the book of Jubilees, Adam could talk to animals in Eden, but they "shut their mouths to him" when he was cast out. Perhaps animism came about from the ancestral memories of the early humans who pined for a connection lost. The third are the fallen angels who had a hierarchy, were petty, malicious, and humanistic. Think Zeus and the Sumerian pantheon and compare to the Grigori. Interestingly enough, this is a train of thought I've had for years and found it articulated 1900 years ago among the earliest Church Fathers including Peter and Paul.

Anyways here is Jubilees and 1Enoch if you're interested: www.pseudepigrapha.com...
www.pseudepigrapha.com...

Interesting side note: neither of these books would exist in their entirety were it not for the Ethiopian Orthodox

edit on 28-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


i skipped through the first video,

all i saw was subjective thinking and words without scholar references ,
line, paragraph , page , book , author

references ,



I only watched the first one because I was also unimpressed. The video did not make any mention of Nommo, the crucified god of the Dogon, nor did they mention Mithraism which worships the solar god Mithra who was crucified and rose again after 3 days, and is the religion that St Paul was a part of before his "conversion" to Christianity. St Paul went on to do some pretty shadey things with the remaining disciples and their fellowships as they tried to create a church.

Is this mentioned/debunked in the following videos? If so, I will watch the one in which it is addressed, until then I will continue to believe that Christianity was created from other religions to control the popluation as Zietgeist suggests.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


i skipped through the first video,

all i saw was subjective thinking and words without scholar references ,
line, paragraph , page , book , author

references ,



I only watched the first one because I was also unimpressed. The video did not make any mention of Nommo, the crucified god of the Dogon, nor did they mention Mithraism which worships the solar god Mithra who was crucified and rose again after 3 days, and is the religion that St Paul was a part of before his "conversion" to Christianity. St Paul went on to do some pretty shadey things with the remaining disciples and their fellowships as they tried to create a church.

Is this mentioned/debunked in the following videos? If so, I will watch the one in which it is addressed, until then I will continue to believe that Christianity was created from other religions to control the popluation as Zietgeist suggests.


Okay, I think I see what's going on here. You must be new to the internet and not understand how it works. I'll help explain it.

You said, "I only watched the first one because I was also unimpressed"

Mithra was covered. You see on YouTube sometimes they break a single video up into different chunks that we call "parts". To watch the whole video you have to click on all the parts. Then you will see all the topics that are covered and not just part of the video.

The parts are usually numbered 1 to however many parts it takes to hold the entire video. You start with the first part numbered 1 or Part 1 or something similar. After the first one ends, you simply click play on the second one and the second video will pick up where the first one left off. Eventually you'll get to the end of the last video and you'll have seen the WHOLE video and not just part of it. Get it now?

Also, the videos in this thread only cover the claims made by the Zeitgeist film. If you're talking about other stuff that wasn't discussed in the Zeitgeist film, then that topic will not be covered in the refuting Zeitgeist thread. See, we only discuss one topic at a time on internet forums. That's how a forum works.

Let me explain. You see an internet forum is divided into different topics that we call threads. Each thread has a topic you see. If the topic changes, then you create a new thread. This is how we keep the forum organized so people can find what they're looking for.

The topic of this thread is to refute claims made in another YouTube video/series called Zeitgeist which also comes in parts and has sequels that are also not covered here. So that means this thread will only address claims made by the first Zeitgeist film because that is the TOPIC of this thread. Make sense? So, you see a topic such as Dogon or Nommo will not be covered because that wasn't a topic that was in the first Zeitgeist.

To do so would be what's known as going OFF TOPIC. The object is to stay ON TOPIC and if you wish to discuss something else you can find the thread for that topic or create it if it doesn't exist. So, while I understand you may have your own beliefs on some other matter, they're not relevant to this thread. We must stay ON TOPIC.

The reason is, because our objective is to hold people to the claims that they have ALREADY made. Sometimes when people are proven wrong or proven to be LIARS, a common tactic is to just ignore that they have been proven wrong and can no longer back up their original claims and so then they just keep making up new FALSE claims! This leads to going OFF TOPIC and the thread becomes disorganized and nothing gets accomplished.

But that's not what you're doing is it right? You probably just don't know how threads work, so that's why we do it that way. Hope you understand.

See the reason it's a problem is that sometimes people in the wrong will just keep making new claims forever without admitting they were wrong to start with. But that's a dishonest way of debating. On the forums, we try to hold people to proving their initial claims, or simply admit they were wrong and then move on and start a new thread to avoid the entire problem. Make sense?

So if you wish to discuss Dogon or Nommo which are not something covered by the first Zeitgeist film, and therefore not covered by the videos in this thread, and therefore OFF TOPIC for this thread, please feel free to start a new thread.

To debate honestly, the Zeitgeist people and Zeitgeist supporters must first prove their initial claims, or admit that their initial claims were wrong before moving on to a new topic. Until that happens, we're stuck on the original topic see?

This keeps it somewhat civilized and organized and coherent and to the point. See? I hope I was helpful.

edit on 28-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


i skipped through the first video,

all i saw was subjective thinking and words without scholar references ,
line, paragraph , page , book , author

references ,



I only watched the first one because I was also unimpressed. The video did not make any mention of Nommo, the crucified god of the Dogon, nor did they mention Mithraism which worships the solar god Mithra who was crucified and rose again after 3 days, and is the religion that St Paul was a part of before his "conversion" to Christianity. St Paul went on to do some pretty shadey things with the remaining disciples and their fellowships as they tried to create a church.

Is this mentioned/debunked in the following videos? If so, I will watch the one in which it is addressed, until then I will continue to believe that Christianity was created from other religions to control the popluation as Zietgeist suggests.

Paul was a pharisee, he wasn't part of the Mithraic cult. I have never heard that accusation before today and I have heard a ton of accusations against Paul. No writing concerning Paul links him to anything other than Judaism, Hellenism, and Christianity NOTHING. Mithra wasn't crucified and didn't die, he ascended to heaven in a chariot, but that's it. As for Dogon, I can't find any info on this god, though I find it highly unlikely that he was executed on a Roman torture device.

edit on 28-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


WOW!

Ok, I posted that after reading page 4 of this thread. To my surprise it landed on page 40something, this thread grew fast, and I didn't know how long it was. I did not read the entire thread but was answering a conversation about solar religions and sun gods. I am unaware of the conversations of the last 30 pages, unfornutaley, and it seems I have much catching up to do. But I guess you OWN this thread now? Didn't mean to derail.......

Also, I didn't want to watch ALL of the videos after being unimpressed with the first. It seemed like more of the same. I was trying to be respectful to the OP but felt I had a legitimate question, and I would be willing to look at the vid that did feature Mithra, but wasn't going to watch it all.

I was unfamiliar with "Zeitgeist" before reading this thread so I did a brief search and read the Wikipedia deffinition, I am not versed in the "movement" but I relate to what I read.

I would like to thank you for taking so much time and consideration is "schooling" me about the internets and it's tubes and stuff. You taught me so much! Thanks.


edit on 28-5-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


I just did a quick search on "St Paul influenced by Mithraism" and I gotta tell ya that there is a ton of sites that make that "accusation." I have been under this impression for at least 20 years. I am surprised it is news to you. It is out there for you inspection if you so desire.

Also, I haven't done recent research into the Dogon. My citing Nommo was from memory, however, I did a quick search and found an article from "Before Its News" and I cut and pasted this from the article;

"
The Nommos were more fishlike than human, and had to live in water. They were saviors and spiritual guardians: "The Nommo divided his body among men to feed them; that is why it is also said that as the universe "had drunk of his body," the Nommo also made men drink. He gave all his life principles to human beings.

The Nommo was crucified and resurrected and in the future will again visit the earth, this time in human form. Later he will assume his amphibious form and will rule the world from the waters."

Thanks for your attention to this thread. I appreciate you correspondance.


edit on 28-5-2011 by windword because: sp

edit on 28-5-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


It's cool, if you just want to see the Mithra part, it starts near the end of part 4 I'm pretty sure, and through the 5th video. The middle videos tend to be better and I would recommend watching them all because even though the main Mithra part is in 4 and 5, I'm not sure if they come back to that topic later or not.

I was unaware you were unaware of the Zeitgeist movement and its supporters. You see, it is common for them to make a claim, and then when evidence is pointed out that there claim isn't true, they'll just keep making new claims and it keeps going on and on and on and nothing gets resolved. The most common one if you go back and read the thread is they'll try to prove that Zeitgeist is right by proving the Bible wrong.

But many people don't seem to understand that BOTH the Bible and the movie Zeitgeist can both be wrong and they assert that if can they prove the Bible wrong some other way, then that the film Zeitgeist must somehow be right, and they keep trying to take it off topic and it goes on and on and on.

Like I understand you have your own ideas about the Bible and Dogon or Nommo and many other people have many other beliefs and that's cool and all, and even interesting stuff I'd love to see in a thread, but many of the claims made in the Zeitgeist movie are still plain wrong also. And that's all we're asking Zeitgeist supporters to do, is stay on topic and just simply prove the claims they've already made, or admit they're not correct and then we can just move on.

Because you see the film Zeitgeist makes some very interesting claims, so if the claims ARE true we'd like to know that. If not then however depressing some people may find it, then oh well, it's cool, but it just didn't turn out to be true.

Instead they just keep trying to hand wave and say, oh well if we just keep saying it's true it'll be true! lol. I mean it really all boils down to a bunch of people that can't take constructive criticism really. It's like, a really entertaining movie, but if the claims aren't true, then so what? It's just a fictional film and they need to tell their fans that. They owe their fans that.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Oh. That's a Tom Cruise movie huh? I had a bad experience with Scientology and can't stand him. I didn't see the movie........

Honestly, the term Zeitgeist has been around for a long time and I thought it was more a psychological phenomena of awareness. That's why I did a search on it and learned it was a movement that seems to claim the present day human condition is a planned occurance by TPTB by using religion for ages. Thanks for taking the time to explain the issues to me.

They need to add a Sarah Palin "wink" to the icons on this site!

edit on 28-5-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2011 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2011 by windword because: spelling and grammer



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Lol yeah, we're just talking about the fictional movie that is also called Zeitgeist. I know the term Zeitgeist has been around for a while, but someone also named their movie that too.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
The basic argument of the first Zeitgeist film (the religious bit) is that Jesus is based on older myths and stories

yes there are parts of their argument that are wrong or at lest based on faulty research, even so in my opinion they made their case.

An example of what the Zeitgeist film got correct, I live in Finland and the Orion belt stars (three kings/wise men) pointing at Sirius which leads to the sun rise on mid winter is a very old story here and I have watched it happen many times


Putting it another way, Sinbad is based on the Ulysses stories, but so is captain Kirk (star trek) they are all a kind of “heroic quest” narrative types and they have many other similarities as well – a ship, crew, facing monster ect and I bet no christians will have any problems accepting the above example.

But if any one applies the same reasoning to the Christians favourite character, that Jesus is another sun god/ life-death-rebirth archetype, they get upset


edit on 29-5-2011 by racasan because: tidy up some stuff



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by stevcolx
 


Then the true God YHVH cast them into Tartarus a.k.a. the pit or the outer darkness (one of those words erroneously transcribed as "hell" in the Bible) and flooded the world to undo the damage caused by the Grigori, the nephilim, and mankind gone astray.



Hmmmm there is a video that details such as similar story or myth!!




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
The basic argument of the first Zeitgeist film (the religious bit) is that Jesus is based on older myths and stories

yes there are parts of their argument that are wrong or at lest based on faulty research, even so in my opinion they made their case.

An example of what the Zeitgeist film got correct, I live in Finland and the Orion belt stars (three kings/wise men) pointing at Sirius which leads to the Sun rise on mid winter is a very old story here and I have watched it happen many times


Putting it another way, Sinbad is based on the Ulysses stories, but so is captain Kirk (star trek) they are all a kind of “heroic quest” narrative types and they have many other similarities as well – a ship, crew, facing monster ect and I bet no christians will have any problems accepting the above example.

But if any one applies the same reasoning to the Christians favourite character, that Jesus is another Sun god/ life-death-rebirth archetype, they get upset


edit on 29-5-2011 by racasan because: tidy up some stuff


No, you haven't, because stars don't move.

See, I never got upset the first time I saw Zeitgeist. I didn't get mad until I found out they were telling lies. It's the LIES that get people mad. Understand? If it's the truth, it's the truth, what are you gonna do? But it didn't turn out to be true! That's the problem.

For example, this is already covered in the 5th video. In Zeitgeist they claim that the "three kings" are the same as the "three magi". and on the 25th they align with Sirius (the star in the east) and point to the Sun. This is a LIE to mislead you into believing what I call a "spooky coincidence".

You say OMG the three magi align with the star in the east and point to the Sun on the 25th! The same day Jesus was born! OMG! WHAT A SPOOKY COINCIDENCE! THEY MUST HAVE MADE CHRISTIANITY UP!

The only problem is the spooky coincidence isn't true. You see, first of all, the three stars of Orions Belt don't align with Sirius on the 25th. THEY'RE STARS! STARS DON'T MOVE! They're in the same spot every day of the year. They can't align with anything. They're just always like that. So, you see, the 25th has nothing to do with it. They do that everyday!

Also, by the time the Sun comes up on the 25th, the three stars have also already dropped below the horizon long before the Sun rises, not at all like it is presented in Zeitgeist. The only time anything remotely close to what Zeitgeist claims actually happens is months before December. Nowhere near the 25th of Dec and the Southern Crux is in a completely different spot in the sky than what they claim. ALWAYS! It never moves either. It is also made out of stars. The Sun never rises in the Southern crux like they claim in Zeitgeist. I mean, it's the Southern Crux? Sun - east to west, not south, get it?

Also, there is no reference for the three stars of Orion's belt being called the three magi or wise men. Kings maybe, but that's post-Christian. Also, the Bible never says there were three wise men! Nobody knows for sure, but based on some non-biblical texts, the number of wise men or magi was twelve, and not three. But like I said, no one knows.

Another problem is the star in the east thing. The wise men in the Bible were said to have COME from the east. Not the star. The Bible never says anything about the star. We have no idea, it doesn't say. All we know for sure is it says they came from the east.

Also, the Zeitgeist film leads us to believe that the three stars were lead by Sirius to the birth of the "Sun". Great, there's just one problem. That's not what happens in the Bible! In the Bible the stars lead the wise men to King Herod! Not Jesus or the "Sun" and the word son in Greek sounds nothing like Sun anyway. That's just a word game they play in a language that didn't even exist back then.

And Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December!

So let's sum it up. On Dec 25th the three "kings" don't move and stay in the spot they always do along with Sirius the "star in the east", and fall below our horizon (because we're moving) before the Sun comes up. Then later the Sun comes up nowhere near the southern crux. That's the truth, very drastically different than the story told in Zeitgeist.

Now, what does that have to do with the Bible story of an un-numbered amount of wise men coming from the east, maybe even following a star in the west to a king that wasn't Jesus on a day that wasn't December 25th?

Some similarities? Maybe, but mostly differences. As we see, once you take out the lies told by Zeitgeist, then the "spooky coincidence" isn't so spooky anymore is it? The whole problem is, they rely on that spooky coincidence to make you believe that it all lines up perfectly. But it doesn't all line up perfectly. For example, where in Zeitgeist does it tell about how the star Sirius goes kinda the wrong way, meets up with the king, talks for a while, gets rerouted in a different direction, and then kinda finally gets to where it was going after the "Sun" had already been born(risen)? Nowhere, because we're talking about two totally different stories.

She should have just told it like it is and said maybe this is what they referring to. And maybe we would have seen some similarities, but if she told the truth then the story isn't spooky! So, she chose to lie and that's the problem.

See, I don't like it when someone has to use lies to get their point across and it has nothing to do with the Bible. I just don't like being lied to. Now maybe you don't mind it, and that's your thing. But I'm on ATS trying to deny ignorance and I want to know as much truth as I can.

Another problem is that you need pre-Christian sources for these kind of things. You need something that was written before Christ came referring to the three stars as the "three wise men". We don't have that. They were probably never called that until after Jesus came.

The reason is because other religions ripped off Christianity. And that's a well documented fact. After Jesus people would even walk out of tombs with paintings or images of their gods so they could say LOOK! OUR GOD HAS RISEN TOO! They wanted to be like Jesus so they rewrote all their myths and there is much evidence of this. The Zeitgeist people claim it was the other way around, but then have literally no evidence to back that up.

So you need pre-Christian sources because if all your references are POST-Christian, like the sources that Zeitgeist uses, then what you have is defacto proof that the OTHER religions copied Christianity. There would have been no physical possible way for Christianity to have stole ideas that didn't exist yet. So, to make these claims you need pre-Christian sources proving that people believed these ideas BEFOREHAND so that it was possible for Christianity to steal them in the first place. They don't have that.

This is why the Zeitgeist people go into a hizzy when you ask for a pre-Christian source. They even tried to redefine the word pre-Christian. I have a video where they basically say, "we have our own definition for pre-Christian and I'll talk about" lol, never talks about it But basically what they really meant is, pre-Christian now means post-Christian ! lol. The reason is because all they have is proof everyone copied Christianity. Not the other way around.

People even offered them MONEY if they could provide ONE SINGLE pre-Christian source. They just needed ONE! Didn't even try. Proof that Christianity was the one that got copied by others.
edit on 29-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join