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

Originally posted by Iason321
I love it when the truth comes out and the atheists biggest source of information gets utterly and completely crushed by the power of the Spirit. Amen !

God bless you all!

I think this is unfair. Even in terms of the more obnoxious of them, the intent of most Atheists is not consciously malicious. They want to liberate people from something which they think is extremely repressive and harmful. Evangelical Christians tend to have the same desire; it's just in different contexts, and gets expressed in different ways.

The goal of both, though, is usually the same, paradoxically enough; a solid, direct relationship for a person, with a liberating form of the truth.

reply to post by petrus4


I agree, also it's only incredibly ignorant atheists who use this nonsense in argument. Nearly all of the professional atheists I know of thought Zeitgeist was stupid, except for James Tabor who is a complete and total charlatan.

Zeitgeist part 1 has been quite thoroughly backed up with credible evidence that actually exists, which is far more than Christianity or any other religion can claim. The attacks against ZG1 and its sources tend to come from a) Christian apologists out to shore up their faith at all costs - even if it means lying about it and maliciously smearing real living people simply trying to tell the WHOLE story and b) atheists who are anti religion and/or ignorant of the mythology behind all these ancient religious concepts. Some atheists are merely jealous and misogynistic at those whose work was significantly used in Zeitgeist part 1, such as Acharya S.

The Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook transcript & sources
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
freethoughtnation.com...

A couple responses to critics:

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
truthbeknown.com...

Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1
www.freethoughtnation.com...

From a review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt":

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."

"[Horus] is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern."

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Professor of Archaeology
www.freethoughtnation.com...

The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism?

As usual Golden Knight you are rehashing many of the same shills who have been thoroughly & convincingly rebutted by reputed scholars. Very few actually take the work seriously. And that's a few folk that don't know any better.

In addition the Zeitgeist movement has pretty much wound down as it became apparent that those in leadership were an unbalanced lot that actually think they can "enforce" their plan.

The Age of Deceit is much more enlightening than anything you post.

reply to post by GoldenKnight

From a review of Acharya's book "Christ in Egypt"

There isn't a single usable source to back up anything in the first part of Zeitgeist. If you feel differently please keep in mind, people are paying for sources to back up any of the Zeitgeist claims. Any source. A single valid source to prove even a single claim is enough. Go collect payment if you think I'm wrong. But good luck proving all her claims.

One of her claims is that Jesus never existed. Another claim of hers is that Jesus was a free mason. Good luck proving both those claims. I'd like to see anyone try to prove that a guy that never existed was a free mason.

They just source themselves. I hope you understand that Acharya and DM Murdock are the same person right? You know she's sourcing herself right?

You also know that Acharya is one of the Zeitgeist people right? Again they're just sourcing their own work in a circular way. It's the same thing as when Christians use the Bible to prove the Bible. Don't fall for that trick just because someone flipped it around backwards on you.

If you can source yourself then you can prove anything. You can write a completely false book, then write a second book and use all the false claims in the first book as your sources. But that doesn't make them true.

You can just make a movie called Zeitgeist that uses your first false book as sources too. Then you can say see, I proved it! Look at all these sources! But the problem is they never proved the sources in their first book.

This is what the Zeitgeist people are doing. They make all these claims and to prove it they source their own books in another book.

If you read the sources in those books you find out they either go nowhere and point back to themselves with circular logic, or they source people like Graves that also had no sources, source themselves, or have been heavily discredited.

None of them have any actual pre-christian physical evidence that go back to before Jesus to show he was a myth. All they have is post-christian writings, and we're talking hundreds of years post-christian writings, that prove all the other religions started to copy Christianity. Not the other way around.

All they do is write their opinions, then source that opinion in another book. But no matter how many times you do that, it's still just a circular opinion. The Zeitgeist people are not atheists or scholars. They're new agers. They have their own religion they want to sell you.

Sure maybe the other pre-Jesus Gods were just constellations in the sky. But that's their problem. Jesus as far as we know was an actual real person and the majority of scholars agree on that.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


And yeah, Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist.

"I am deeply suspicious of this video. I think there are SOME revealing similarities between the Jesus myth, and the other god myths mentioned. But there are surely not as many similarities as are alleged here. For example, all those gods being born on 'December 25th.' That would be an amazingly powerful weapon against Christianity if it were true, but it is surely not true. Our system of naming dates didn't even exist when some of those god myths arose. This cavalier use of 'December 25th' is just one example. I am suspicious of many other details on similar grounds. The whole film has the air of something made up, in pursuit of an anti-Christian agenda (with which I happen to sympathize) but with almost complete disregard for truth, which I fear parallels the lies told by religious apologists."

-- Richard Dawkins

WTF. This is your idea of proof? Did you read what he actually said?

reply to post by tinfoilman
Aint nothin' rusty on the tinfoilman!

just kinda scanned through the 51 pages here. and haven't seen any one post this yet.
Jesus was not born on Dec 25. He was born mid to late Sept.

Dec25 was adopted by the roman catholic church. it was chosen because pagans had a sun festival on that day.
Dec 21 is the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. Dec 25 is the first day that they could tell that the days were getting longer.

the same with easter the roman emperor constantine, became a christian.he and the church wanted the pagans to convert to christianity, so they started adopting pagan festival days renaming them with christian names. to keep the converts happy.

.

The GUT "As usual Golden Knight you are rehashing many of the same shills who have been thoroughly & convincingly rebutted by reputed scholars"

LOL, this may be true in the fantasy world you live in, but in the real world it's just a complete divorce from reality. Lies, distortions and blatantly false statements are not credible rebuttals, sorry.

The GUT "The Age of Deceit is much more enlightening than anything you post"

Yes, of course, the extremist anti-Zeitgeist biases here is as transparent as glass. However, that crap from Chris White and Keith Trash has been debunked and you can see Keith Trash get caught using a false or sock puppet account here:

Keith "Truth" is a useful idiot
www.freethoughtnation.com...

tinfoilman "There isn't a single usable source to back up anything in the first part of Zeitgeist."

LOL, then you've obviously made no effort to read anything about it and are instead relying on extreme biases to support your anti-Zeitgeist views in order to shore up your faith at all costs even if it means being dishonest.

You obviously never read:

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
truthbeknown.com...

Here we have a biblical scholar with two Ph.D.'s conceding to the points raised in Zeitgeist so, obviously your claims are false:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."

"[Horus] is pictured as spanning the dome of heaven, his arms stretched out in a cruciform pattern."

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's; book review
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

tinfoilman "people are paying for sources to back up any of the Zeitgeist claims."

" the apologists claiming ZG1 is false seem oblivious to the fact that they have no CREDIBLE evidence to point to in order to substantiate their own religion's supernatural or even many historical claims. I guess their religion is suppose to be true just because they say so and they have a book. Notice how none of those books were actually written by any god - it's always by men. Where are the footnotes and what are the credentials of these writers? Sometimes they attempt to claim that those books were written by men under the influence of or inspired by their god but, that's just another way of saying "channeling" which is paganism, again.

If I were you I wouldn't expect to get any money from any of those apologists challenges. They have no intention of paying up. Still, if they're so confident why can't they get all the churches throughout the world to chip into the pot? If they were so sure, they could put up $10 million. No, no they started with $100 & raised it to $250. The other site offers $1000 but it's the same story:

1) They have no intention of paying

2) They will find any reason to dismiss the evidence

The standards for evidence is far, far higher than they subject their own belief systems to - which has no credible evidence at all. So there's a hypocritical double-standard right out of the gate. Their only goal is to shore up their faith at all costs - even if it means smearing and libeling living breathing humans."

Zeitgeist Challenge Debunked
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Jesus & Horus Parallels and KingDavid8.com Exposed
www.freethoughtnation.com...

tinfoilman "One of her claims is that Jesus never existed. Another claim of hers is that Jesus was a free mason"

Baahaha, ha, having actually read her work I know for a fact this isn't accurate. She never claims Jesus was a freemason she explains that many of the concepts of the mysteries are freemasonic = big difference.

tinfoilman "You also know that Acharya is one of the Zeitgeist people right? Again they're just sourcing their own work in a circular way. It's the same thing as when Christians use the Bible to prove the Bible. Don't fall for that trick just because someone flipped it around backwards on you.

This is also false. Acharya is not "one of the Zeitgeist people" Peter Joseph contacted her and she suggested a few simple changes ending up as the official version only for part 1; you're attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill:

"Acharya S/D.M. Murdock had no part in the creation of any of the Zeitgeist movies beyond sharing some images for part 1. Peter Joseph did use a significant amount of her work though and asked for a quick consultation (ONLY FOR PART 1) at the last minute, which resulted in the OFFICIAL version of part 1."
www.freethoughtnation.com...

tinfoilman "None of them have any actual pre-christian physical evidence that go back to before Jesus to show he was a myth"

LOL, it's official, you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about or you're blatantly lying. I see no reason to waste any more time on you and neither should anybody else.

tinfoilman "And yeah, Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist. WTF. This is your idea of proof? Did you read what he actually said?"

Humm, are you really that daft or are you pathologically dishonest? All you needed to do was actually read everything else below that comment, which is what that post was all about, which you either didn't read or are lying about it.

Richard Dawkins on Zeitgeist, Part 1
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Is that what religion has done to you - made you pathologically dishonest? Sure seems like it.

hounddoghowlie "Jesus was not born on Dec 25. He was born mid to late Sept. "

There exists no credible evidence for Jesus being born in September whatsoever.

John the Baptist and Jesus' Birthdays
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Jesus Never Existed
truth-saves.com...

reply to post by GoldenKnight

the apologists claiming ZG1 is false seem oblivious to the fact that they have no CREDIBLE evidence to point to in order to substantiate their own religion's supernatural or even many historical claims.

You seem to not understand the debate that's actually happening here.

You don't have to prove Christianity true to show Zeitgeist is wrong. I hope you realize both can be false at the same time. A lot of people don't get what this debate is actually about. It's not about if Christianity is true or not.

It's not about if Jesus was actually real or if Horus was actually real or if Horus was actually born on the 25th. If that's where your at, that's not what the debate is even about.

The debate is about what people believed about their gods and therefore wrote down regardless of if that belief was actually true or not.

I personally believe Jesus was real, but granted it's possible Jesus could just be a myth. But that's NOT what we're debating. What we're debating is if that myth was copied from EARLIER myths or not. Got me? The Jesus myth could have very well been an original writing that was NOT copied from earlier myths and still have been a myth right? It was just a new myth. But that's not the issue.

The claim that's made is that the myth of Jesus was copied from EARLIER sources. That may be true or not, but to prove it you have to have said EARLIER pre-Christian sources to prove that people actually did in fact believe in such a myth BEFORE Jesus showed up. Which the Zeitgeist people DON'T have.

How do I know this? Because in later interviews the Zeitgeist people admit they DON'T HAVE THEM. DM Murdock even claims she herself doesn't have them because all the evidence was DESTROYED before she was even born! That's right I can link you to the interview. She actually admits that all her pre-Christian evidence was destroyed, but yet she somehow magically knows what it said anyway? HA!

I hope you know, the Zeitgeist people THEMSELVES have RECANTED many of the claims they made in their first video. That's partly what their moving forward video was about. To move forward from the mistakes in their first video and get it right the second time.

I hope you know even the Zeitgeist people don't agree with you anymore. They've moved forward and back tracked from most of their original claims like Horus being crucified for example.

All they have is post-Christian sources because after Jesus other religions started to copy Christianity. Not the other way around. Even to the point of walking out of tombs with paintings of their gods saying "See! Our god has risen too! Just like Jesus!" lol.

However there is no pre-Christian source to show that people believed in anything similar to the Jesus myth before Christianity had already started. One time when asked for a pre-Christian source DM Murdock cited a child's VHS on Amazon lol. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Jesus came before the VCR. She is not a scholar.

This is actually pretty apparent from the beginning. Speaking of Horus the great "sun" god. OH NO WAIT! Horus wasn't the sun god. Horus was the sky god, or falcon god.

Did we forget our Stargate here? The sun god was RA! That's right. Every elementary school kid knows that the Egyptian sun god was Ra. Not Horus. The fact that she can't even get this basic fact correct should show you, she's no scholar. She's not even on the level of a third grader.

On top of that, even the Zeitgeist people now admit this about many of their original claims and no longer agree with you! When will you catch up? lol.

tinfoilman "You seem to not understand the debate that's actually happening here."

You quoted a quote I provided out of context. I even provided the link for it.

www.freethoughtnation.com...

tinfoilman "The debate is about what people believed about their gods and therefore wrote down regardless of if that belief was actually true or not. "

Funny, I don't remember your name mentioned anywhere in Zeitgeist so, I don't see where you are in charge of decided anything at all let alone what the debate is or is not really about.

tinfoilman "The claim that's made is that the myth of Jesus was copied from EARLIER sources. That may be true or not, but to prove it you have to have said EARLIER pre-Christian sources to prove that people actually did in fact believe in such a myth BEFORE Jesus showed up. Which the Zeitgeist people DON'T have.

How do I know this? Because in later interviews the Zeitgeist people admit they DON'T HAVE THEM. DM Murdock even claims she herself doesn't have them because all the evidence was DESTROYED before she was even born! That's right I can link you to the interview. She actually admits that all her pre-Christian evidence was destroyed, but yet she somehow magically knows what it said anyway? HA! "

LOL, You have already demonstrated repeatedly throughout this thread that you have no clue what you're talking about at all. The Sourcebook and responses to critics prove you wrong, embarrassingly wrong. You are nothing more than a lying sack of #. I've heard the interview and she certainly does explain that lots have been destroyed, but certainly not everything as you're attempting to claim here. She also points out specifics of what they destroyed because they were so proud of it that Christians documented it themselves. You sir, are utterly dishonest. Are you Chris White or something?

tinfoilman "I hope you know, the Zeitgeist people THEMSELVES have RECANTED many of the claims they made in their first video."

LOL, another blatant lie. Quite the opposite they have substantiated the claims with pre-Christian primary sources and scholar commentary on them - proving all of your claims wrong.

tinfoilman "All they have is post-Christian sources because after Jesus other religions started to copy Christianity."

LOL, you can continue to repeat these lies for another 2,000 years and it will never make it true. You are a liar.

tinfoilman "there is no pre-Christian source to show that people believed in anything similar to the Jesus myth before Christianity had already started. "

LOL, even Christian New Testament scholar disagree with you:

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? 259

tinfoilman "Speaking of Horus the great "sun" god. OH NO WAIT! Horus wasn't the sun god. Horus was the sky god, or falcon god. "

This just shows how utterly ignorant you are on this subject as well as dishonest as you obviously haven't read anything regarding Zeitgeist - for example the VERY FIRST ARGUMENT DEBUNKED here proving that you haven't ever even looked at it let alone read it:

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
truthbeknown.com...

Here's a blog that cites the primary sources and scholar commentary on them - proving you embarrassingly wrong...

HORUS IS A SUN GOD!!!
freethoughtnation.com...

tinfoilman, it's blatantly obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about &/or you're just a pathological liar. You have proven that you are not a reliable or credible source regarding Zeitgeist part 1 in any way whatsoever. A person with a conscience would be embarrassed by what you've attempted to claim here. you're only out to shore up your faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means being utterly dishonest.

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
hounddoghowlie "Jesus was not born on Dec 25. He was born mid to late Sept. "

There exists no credible evidence for Jesus being born in September whatsoever.

Actually, there is, along with confirmation of the day of the cross, both events of which occured in simultaneity or in synchronicity with astonomical events.

The Day of the Cross



www.bethlehemstar.net...

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
hounddoghowlie "Jesus was not born on Dec 25. He was born mid to late Sept. "

There exists no credible evidence for Jesus being born in September whatsoever.

well if you want to believe your sources, you can do that but if you look into the the hebrew calender below.and compare dates. and read the second link not with closed mind but open a mind. you will see plenty of evidence.
Calendar for Jesus' Birthday
JESUS' REAL BIRTHDAY

and as far as eveidence for Jesus existence.
Historicity of Jesus
and i think most people accept a wiki, over a blog any day.

see this from the wiki

Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed, and see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7][8][9] Scholars generally agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born BC 7–2 and died AD 30–36.[10][11] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea[12][13][14] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[15][16][17][18][19] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[20][21][22][23] Beyond baptism and crucifixion, scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to the historicity of other events and a list of eight facts that may be historically certain about Jesus and his followers has been widely discussed.[24][25][21] But scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal, e.g. while some scholars accepts that Jesus called disciples, others maintain that Jesus imposed no hierarchy and preached to all in equal terms.[25][21]

these are just the easiest links i have, i'm not gonna do all the work for you. if you do the work your self then you will see there is plenty of evidence.

i will suggest that you search, (constantine and the roman catholic church) ( when was Jesus born) and (pagan festivals and christians holidays) (the roman catholic church and pagan festivals)

i thought i would show this also from the above wiki, it's about the guy tacitus's one of the guy's used in your second link.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[150][151][152][153][154][155][156] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[23] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[156] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[153]

reply to post by GoldenKnight


ya know i went back and looked at about 15 or 20 of your posts.
and what i found was every link or source you have provided, is a blog. a self promoting/blog book selling site, or a atheist/ non believer book reviewer praising the sites mentioned above. which to me is like tinfoilman said, going around in circles. (paraphrasing)

all they are doing is the same thing that they claim believers are doing, using their own work to prove their point.
for all i know www.freethoughtnation.com, is a site that d.m. murdock (acharya s.),started her self in order to promote her self and zg1.

now i posted one link that was pro Christ/ and or support of sept.birth date view, and another site that i would call unbiased.
until you can do the same i would call all your posts null and void. no matter how much intellect you try and pretend to have.

eta: just went back looking at your links, and found out that d.m. murdock (acharya s.), did start www.freethoughtnation.com so every thing the site admin says is suspect. it;s probably her.
i found it were your link for chris frobes claims to be debunked, when actually it should be called a rebuttal.and all the other links from that site you called debunked.
Blogs of Acharya S/ D.M. Murdock

so as for me every one of your posts that use that link or any associated with her are null and void.

it's the last one

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yes it is. Freethoughtnation is just Acharya's website and its whois goes back to Stellar publishing. Her own publishing company.

It's just a bunch of Zeitgeist supporters sourcing their own posts to prove that their own posts are true.

reply to post by tinfoilman


you know that's pretty sad.
you might say that is the height of ignorance. sourcing ones' self.
that is something that is supposed to be denied here.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Yes it is. Freethoughtnation is just Acharya's website and its whois goes back to Stellar publishing. Her own publishing company.

It's just a bunch of Zeitgeist supporters sourcing their own posts to prove that their own posts are true.

I keep getting this mental image that GoldenKnight is Archrya/Murdock sitting around drunk, thinking about the glory days before she was so thoroughly debunked by academia, endlessly referencing her own blog and misrepresenting things ad infinitum...glug glug....

My two cents..zeitgeist was more factually true than the bible ever was..