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

page: 53
76
<< 50  51  52    54 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 




LOL, more lies from a pathological liar - this has already been addressed; it's an absolute lie every single time you make the claim that they're only citing themselves - it's laughable to all those who've actually read her work, which in fact, does include primary sources


So, I don't know what your calling me a liar crap is about. It's just a classic ad hominem. I'm about 100% on what I said to you. I assure you I really believe in everything I told you and others do too. If I'm wrong about anything, and I don't think I am, then I apologize for being wrong. However, that just means I'm wrong. That's a far cry from being a liar.

I've said what I have to say and others will either agree or disagree.

If you people really have the evidence you all think you have, then you're wasting your time on ATS. Go show all your evidence to the historians and scholars. If it's really true, then they're going to be far more receptive to it than a bunch of Christians anyway.

And you keep ranting about no proof of Jesus. But even respected atheists like Dawkins and Carrier don't agree with you. Carrier even says all copies of Zeitgeist should be burned!

Now sure, they may be wrong too. But the point is, it shows you don't have to believe in God or Jesus to think Zeitgeist is a piece of crap. You're wasting your time asking Christians for proof that Jesus was real or that Jesus was God.

Even if he wasn't, that doesn't prove anything, even the atheist scholars think Zeitgeist is crap.
edit on 20-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
You're wasting your time asking Christians for proof that Jesus was real or that Jesus was God.

I dind't mind.


Sometimes the only thing that makes any sense, is to try to be as helpful as possible, and simply fullfill the request for evidence.

It's only fair. The atheist lady in the video had a valid point, and so does everyone who asks for evidence, but when evidence is presented, you owe it to yourself to get the double bind until it unravells in the form of an epiphany, amid gales of laughter and teary eyed wonderment and awe, there's nothing wrong with that either for those who will.. for those given to have the humor of true understanding, if only the understanding that we've been punk'd by God in the best possible way, if only we could figure it out, from both perspectives both ours and God's toward us.. and so for those who will, we dance and sing in celebration, as the Prodigal Son returned home, or make that 1000's of Prodigal Sons all at once (the poor elder brothers..!).

Because where there's real and authentic Justice, especially when it's in the form of Forgiveness, there also arises the possibility of a newfound humor and joy restored, that his joy and ours, might be complete with them in us and us in them - that was the mission. The Jesus Mission/Project of the Living God!



If you don't get it, imho, you just don't have what it takes, to help us all reclaim our birthright, prepared for us from before the foundations of earth and thus to the beginning of this particular universe.

At the very least it's a marvel worth some serious consideration. A double bind on evil for the the sake of love and righteousness, what might that look like.. as a triumph secured for all who believe and recieve, like a cup overflowing with the living water that wells up from within to eternal life in Christ, who's mind is the same, except only more sympathetic to our plight, to our highest hopes and dreams, and to the lowest low points of our sorrows and regrets. God understands US as a result of Jesus' sent-coming, as much as we are givein to understand God's love through the son, so it's a two way street.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
but Jesus Christ is always and forever the perfect gentlemen.

He is the all-inclusive, non-coersive, Bridegroom.

If he were ever at the door, when the bride can hear his voice, is that the time to run away and hide, or turn to the light and become something quite extraordinary by reflection, that's love, and he first chose us. It's up to us however, how much we can recieve, which is measured only by how much we really want. We had but to ask and it was ours!

For me, my own ignorance is rendered utterly absurd in the face of the unreasonable reasonableness of what God is proposing through this poetic lovesong and extraordinary rendering of High Art relative to Humanity..

Who would turn it down, if there really WAS a prescious and free gift of incaculable value, for which we can neither earn nor deserve?!

We're ridiciulous by comparison let me tell you. It's what makes perfect rational sense in the final analysis, no matter WHAT the implications.. and if it's some sort of ball of love then so be it!



The cosmogenesis of the omegapoint of the noosphere (see Tielhard de Chardin for more) is upon us and what we, and the politicans, are facing, is a complete meltdown in our level of stupidity in the face of it (the rock of ages come of age), so it's the rise of humor then at the expense of all our prior ignorance, and the smile that finally wipes away the tears from the eyes! It's the joke at the end of the age of idiocy, at the beginning of an age of reason and spirit conjoined as the Bride is to the Bridegroom, and I mean that spiritually, not sexually when looking back in hindsight from the perspective of a better and brighter tomorrow (spiritually, not economically).

I get it, and "grok" and I know that other people understand/grok (OR, there's the cold hearted idiot calculating his next attack against the evils of the other guys', in this case my own ignorance and stupidity, and on and on it goes, nothing to see here move along..).

The noosphere, what a marvel, a place where nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come, which I purport is a ratioanal basis for faith, nothing less. Or if you like an ultra-rational or supra-rational basis for faith, since at some point, as you accumulate more data, you might just undergo a quantum leap or "pop" in relation to your outmoded ego self.

Something's always got to happen, if you're right on the fulcrum of the love of God in the person of Jesus Christ, all-inclusively and non-coersively, which means that the water does flow, and that there is a wellspring accessible to anyone, let all who thirst come and all who hear say come, and freely drink the living (non dualistic) water that flows from the throne and the lamb of God.


edit on 20-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 

I knew you'd miss it.

Sigh. Onwards and upwards, tally ho.

Best Regards, and God Bless,

Bob (forget the "New Age" handle, I don't need it anymore)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
Yawn, I won't be wasting my time on you as I've been studying the subject for 30 years and there exists no credible evidence for the New Testament Jesus.



"If Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did."

~ James Hannam


Originally posted by DeadSeraph
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is practically indisputable and only a fool would argue otherwise.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
seeing how i could not get a decent response from the one i'm done with, i went to the web.
while i was searching the web looking for links for her books and maybe links for her sources.
i happened upon these two sites.
the fist one.this one was quite interesting to me, see this ex text.

Acharya's critics: her responses (pt.1)
Critics of the TBK website are more than likely to get a plenty heaping of hostility from TBK's very own webmaster. In fact, almost every single one of TBK's critics are confronted with frequent ad-hominen bashing and an apparent offensive defense from the "renowned scholar" in the midst of a debate or challenge. This article will provide a list of links and quotes of Acharya S' critics and the dialouge that takes place between them. (NOTE: We urge readers to look into specific ideal points made in this essay directly quoted from Acharya's words, and that you make your own conclusions based on fair observation of the links provided to the quoted sources.)

did you see the first two sentences.

Critics of the TBK website are more than likely to get a plenty heaping of hostility from TBK's very own webmaster. In fact, almost every single one of TBK's critics are confronted with frequent ad-hominen bashing and an apparent offensive defense from the "renowned scholar" in the midst of a debate or challenge

and here the fifth paragraph,seethe second thru fourth for context i really want you to see the fifth one.

At first this may seem harsh towards Acharya, but looking closely at Acharya's style will tell you quickly that she definitely meets the characteristics of an "angry and irrational person", as we will show readers later on and reasons to exactly why.

does this sound like someone we know, do i dare say that the description matches the one i'm done with.
for fear of a "ad-hominen bashing", and "an apparent offensive defense".
to be fair the site maybe dated and it doesn't appear to be maintained, last copyright 2007 2009.
but you know what zeitgeist 1 and acharya are dated too.
i bring up this site for comparative reasons only. i find the similarities between the one i'm done with and acharya amazing.
any way it's a two page article, if any would care to read it. here is the link.
Acharya's critics: her responses
now the next is one of acharya own sites, stellar house publishing,and first yes thats right a ex text.

It is a curious fact that writers who toss around the words "sloppy," "garbled" and "nonsense" are often guilty of these very things themselves. Case in point is the critical review of the first part of the internet movie "ZEITGEIST" by Skeptic magazine book editor Tim Callahan (Eskeptic, 2/25/09). Callahan proclaims "ZEITGEIST Part 1"--for which I was a source and last-minute consultant on the official version--to be "sloppy" and "garbled," and he proceeds to give his opinion as to its supposed errors. First of all, his declaration that much of the material in ZG is "plainly and simply bogus" is false. Callahan has evidently not even studied the sources meticulously cited on the ZG website to see from where this material comes. Instead, he gives the impression that the movie's creator, Peter Joseph, simply "made it up." Secondly, ZG is a simple summary of the thesis that Jesus is a rehash of the popular sun gods of the Roman Empire and beyond. The 25-minute segment was not meant to serve as a thorough scholarly analysis, so Callahan's talk about "greater scholarship" and "spurious scholarship" constitutes a mere snooty red herring.

in this paragraph she has two links,they are active on the page which i will link to. the first one is for tim callahan of skeptic magazine. the second one is in her words,"sources meticulously cited on the ZG website" what! could this be the sources that i have been wanting so badly. as i eagerly clicked the link, in the back of my mind i knew better. lo and behold what did i find. 404, that and all the same stuff that always on one of these pages, you enter it wrong, copied it wrong. the very last one says, "The link you used to get here is faulty.(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.) " yea i dont think that will get me very far.

after the attack on callahan,the rest of the of the page she spins her yarn about Jesus not being real a person.and just a myth copied from myths. all the while constantly referencing her own books again, and then at the very bottom there are a few external sources given. i will check these out. but suspect it will be the same rehashing of everything presented.
you would think that if she didn't want people to be ignorant, she would share the knowledge freely. or at least provide a taste to wet ones whistle, and lure you in.
well here's the link to her site.there again i only bring this site up for comparative reasons
Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History) A Commentary by Acharya S aka D.M. Murdock
the search continues, but i know better.
edit on 21-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenKnight
 


Also you keep bringing up Price. But Price is also a Jesus mythicist who just did some book reviews that are in the minority opinion of most scholars.

What you quote isn't scholarly work or pre-Christian sources. It's a couple book reviews. No surprise that he likes her books. But when it actually comes to proof and what her sources are? He has to admit there aren't any.

www.truthbeknown.com...


In my review of The Christ Conspiracy, I said that I found Acharya's case for the supposed crucifixions of Krishna and the Buddha unconvincing...

...I remain unconvinced that the hagiography of either of these divine gentlemen ever featured a crucifixion or a resurrection. All right, one account of Krishna has him pinned to a tree by an arrow, a la Achilles, but is that really close enough to crucifixion?




Again and again, Acharya finds herself hemmed in by old writers who never elevated their claims above the level of hearsay. Kersey Graves (The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors) assures the reader that he has before him plenty of original documentation for his claims of crucifixion parallels, but he, er, doesn't have room to include any. And this is the rule, not the exception. Lundy, Higgins, Inman, Graves, Doane, etc., they all claim they have read or heard this or that, but none of them can site a single source document.


So, one of your sources is telling us that she has no sources? WTF? Or is that a different Price?

EDIT: On top of that he doesn't even spell cite right. That's real scholarly.
edit on 21-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

Good article, hounddoghowlie.


I think it's a pretty safe bet that we've identified the circular-self-referencing-self-pitying-ad-hominen poster.

That's a pretty sad picture ain't it?

Hey, you know what would be cool? Let's pray for her!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


i'm with ya on that, i'll say a few words tonight.
and i advise you to gird your loins, after the one i'm done with reads your last post.
because your fixin to get "plenty heaping of hostility" and "ad-hominen bashing. "
maybe even some verbal abuse.

edit on 21-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
hit wrong button, big ol fingers. post coming.





edit on 21-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I wish the debate wasn't so SNARKY!... on both sides..



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I wish the debate wasn't so SNARKY!... on both sides..

I know, I know...but it's not really a debate. A lot of us looked at Murdock's offerings and found them lacking. GK has posted the same thing over and over and over and hasn't acknowledged any thing we've offered.

I did pray for Murdoch though. More than once.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 

Maybe he'll see that blood red moon at the intersecting fulcrum between material causation and ancient prophecy and have an epiphany, hey anything's possible, and frankly I don't see how anyone can get around it or simply proceed and continue to move along with the same old copy-pastes, it's a real juggernaut that I laid down there on the last page, you can't just pretend having seen it that it wasn't there and didn't form part of the argument and the shrill request for evidence which is (was?) already convinced that there is and would be none forthcoming that is even possible, but new information still DOES comes along from time to time, where perhaps it may be said that "the kingdom of heaven is like a storekeeper, who brings forth from his storehouse both something old AND something entirely new" (and old).

I had a dream that a river and source of otherwise un-mined sparkling gold had been opened up that no one had previously been aware of, along with travels to distant places encircled by mountain peaks - I'll take it as a sign that new discoveries can surface and move through the noosphere and have an impact and that my work and efforts here, to unearth it hasn't been in vain.

If it can be proven that Jesus was working to a schedule relative to something that can be now verified in terms of material causation, in history, then we've all got something new and rather astounding on our hands to seriously consider, both atheist and believer alike, including the Jesus-never-existed folks, many of whom probably have never even read the Gospels with an open mind and heart, even as a textual criticism regarding the character of Jesus, let alone his place as a revolutionary and transformative figure in human history.

edit on 21-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
my search continues, not much luck i might add. the bibliography that was listed in the link,
Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History) A Commentary by Acharya S aka D.M. Murdock from my post before last on pg 53, was all but useless. there were 17 listed, none have any footnotes, pg numbers, references or any thing that would be helpful, she must want you to guess at what she uses to draw her conclusions. four of them were her own work, two web sites, 1 site was a group message board, the other was pbs' frontline site for "from Jesus to Christ", which i have seen when it aired.out of the 11 left i was only able to find two, i called my local library and they had those. i have not been unable to locate the others. well i need to correct that, i could buy them, but i'm not the richest man in the world, and i have to spend my money wisely. purchasing these books, i do not feel to be wise.

that's not why i'm posting now. in my search i kept running into references to price's review of her first book.
the Christ conspiracy:the greatest story ever sold
the one where he is very critical of her work, and reveals her name. i saw this the first time in this link.from the same post as above on pg 53,Acharya's critics: her responses on the second page, Jesus seminar - robert m. price.
now i thought this kinda strange, all a long the one that i'm done with, keeps on using price as a source.
so as i was reading the above link in the third paragraph down at the very end, there is a link for her response to his review. click the link in the ex-text below to view. are you surprised. i wasn't. i've been running into this from the very beginning of my search.

While any other person might re-evaluate their approach on a certain subject when their information is lacking or contains errors, Murdock once again took this criticism of her book too personally and devoted an article to Robert Price's review on the TBK: www.truthbeknown.com...
now again in the interest of being fair, it is a old link and could have been purged or any other number of things.again being fair, while reading the ftn blog, i saw several members complaining about posts being removed, and being banned. it would seem that the site admin and mods don't like bad publicity, i wonder if it's the same at the tbk site. well i wanted to see this review. so i went to price's site. this is what i found.www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com
after this i decided to try wikipedia.you can all ways find something on wiki. first looked for price. not much help. then tried d m murdock. got a redirect to this Acharya S while viewing this page i saw this,

Theologian Robert M. Price, who is sympathetic to the Christ myth hypothesis, wrote a critical review of Murdock's first book.[22] He has, however, retracted it previously from his website, for reasons unknown currently.
and the next sentence,

He has been supportive of her subsequent work, promoting Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled in a recommended reading list[23] along with promoting the same book in The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts,[24] penning the foreword to Who Was Jesus: Fingerprints of the Christ and writing a positive review of Christ in Egypt

i'm starting to smell fish again. i tried to find the review several more times, but up to this point it has eluded me.
after taking a break to clear the stench of fish from my nostrils, pushing the review to the side i resumed my search and kept on running into the same things over and over again. also i kept on seeing comments on the review. i came across one link in a search and clicked it.
here's a taste to wet your whistle, a screen shot.

yep i got it, i'll post a link a little later on.
so here we have the review that price and murdock don't want you to see. now granted it's not the original review, it's a is the revised. that being said it is no where else to be found on any of their web sites. and as i have said every link i found in searches was a dead end. i even searched ats, and all i can find is the links that the one who i'm done with posted.
the page appears to be a message board,Christ_Conspiracy · The Christ Conspiracy. i have made screen shots and gonna upload to ats. don't want to let this one slip away. for some reason it seems everybody folds to her. not gonna lose it this time.so here ya go.
The Christ Con by Robert M. Price.
price sure rips here a new one in this review, i wonder what made him change his mind.
this review brings up a lot of questions. that's another post. oh check out acharya's replies in the link.
edit on 22-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


Well Price doesn't even matter because those reviews aren't a valid source. They can't be, that would be impossible. They were written after the fact.

Even if they proved her correct, which they don't, she still couldn't haven't been using them while writing the book. The reviews didn't exist yet!

In other words. Even if they proved Murdock right, nobody should be posting FUTURE book reviews as a source. When she was writing the book, the review didn't exist. What then did she use for sources while actually writing the book?

Is she admitting she didn't have any and just hoped someone like Price would confirm her later? That's absurd. That's not scholarship.

If Murdock is actually correct and legit, then she must have been working off sources that already existed. If that's true, then why don't they just post those?

The whole posting of Price's OPINION on the matter is a waste of time. Because even if the book was legit you'd still have to look up the sources that Price thinks are valid. If that's the case, just post those!

But they can't cause even Price says they're not there.

Good post BTW.
edit on 22-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-8-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Geez, who resurrected this old thread from the dead?

Oh, the D.M. Murdoch defending moron "GoldenKnight", who failed in such a defense over a year ago.

GoldenKnight, your arguments were crap a year ago, they haven't benefited from age -- Murdoch cites worthless sources like Kersey Graves, and when you drill down to anything that supports her, it goes back to either her, Graves or Gerald Massey, none of whom are historians, archaeologists, or biblical scholars.

Assuming that you aren't, in fact, D.M. Murdoch, why don't you just scuttle back to her forums and report that the world is still too grounded in the truth to blindly accept her revision of history?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him.


Pardon me, I hope I'm not to far out of line, but wouldn't you consider Acts, Romans, Corinthians I&II, Galations,
Ephesians, Philippian, Collossians, Thessalonians I & II, Timothy I&II, Titus, Hebrews, Peter I&II, and finally Jude as historical records?
(I know I left one out, but thats okay) I was under the impression that all of the New Testament accounts for the life of Christ Jesus. Jude was not authored by Mat,Mark,Luke or John, and still maintains a historical account of Christ Jesus.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

rebeldog
reply to post by madscientistintraining
 


The OP sounds like a christian who got their ego hurt by knowledge.(kinda like how the original sin of adam/eve was searching for knowledge) only idiots believe that stuff anyway. must hurt to find out the bible is not the end all of life or death..

whats wrong OP mad you were lied to by some backwoods hick preacher? and to embarassed to let the message of zeitgesit sink in..

I bet you hate Bill Hicks, George Carlin, and Christopher Hitchens too.. and you probably hate Religulous also..



It sounds like you are the one who is upset because he has exposed the lies in zeitgeist. I hope you have not put your faith in any of zeitgeis messages.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jesuslives4u
 

Cant you just watch the movie for it's entertainment value....I thought it was excellent for a free Movie. fact or fiction.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

SmikeS

Originally posted by GoldenKnight
"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him.


Pardon me, I hope I'm not to far out of line, but wouldn't you consider Acts, Romans, Corinthians I&II, Galations,
Ephesians, Philippian, Collossians, Thessalonians I & II, Timothy I&II, Titus, Hebrews, Peter I&II, and finally Jude as historical records?
(I know I left one out, but thats okay) I was under the impression that all of the New Testament accounts for the life of Christ Jesus. Jude was not authored by Mat,Mark,Luke or John, and still maintains a historical account of Christ Jesus.



NOPE!!!!!





new topics
top topics
 
76
<< 50  51  52    54 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Radio Presents - Bushcraft On Fire Radio ***On The AIR !!! ***
read more: Bushcraft On Fire Radio : 04/17/2014: Basic Packs, More on Police Encounters and PLANTS!!!!