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

is this keithtruth's (?) video debunking david icke? i found to be both right and wrong, but irregardless, quite interesting!
if nothing else, the gentleman has done alot of research on these topics.
here's his debunking of david icke (remember i don't agree with him 100% but he makes some vaild points).

reply to post by GoldenKnight


LMFAO

Nice "expose" or "debunk" - Hope you were kidding!

double post

reply to post by awake_and_aware


here's a hypothetical: what if zeitgiest is right that it's a pagan religion is there a problem with paganism in your view? (i know what my view is, just curious what problem you would have with paganism, personally).

reply to post by undo


Ahh, David Icke. I actually did a thread about him and other conspiracy giants like Jordan Maxwell and Bibliotecapleyades. David Icke is genuine grade A rat poision; 90% good food, 10% arsenic. The nefarious thing about Icke is that he stirs in horrible misinformation with really really good information (same with Bibliotecapleyades). What makes me not trust Icke is the fact that his description of being contacted by higher intelligences sounds like a classic demon attack.

reply to post by kallisti36


i found the whole thing absolutely fascinating! it's interesting that he supports theosophy and condemns theosophy, at the same time. he supports eugenics and condemns eugenics, at the same time! i don't think he realizes he's doing it either. and the guy who did the video, occassionally does the same thing himself. it's like we're all having the same problem: lack of all the data! we see in a glass darkly, type of thing. would be nice if we had better recall and connect the dots abilities and were more willing to apply this process to ourselves as well.

reply to post by undo


Indeed. Personally, I don't think Icke and Maxwell are willing supporters of the NWO, I think they are patsies and have been decieved (besides, Maxwell is too stupid to be an Illuminst )

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by undo

 

Indeed. Personally, I don't think Icke and Maxwell are willing supporters of the NWO, I think they are patsies and have been decieved (besides, Maxwell is too stupid to be an Illuminati

)

well i'm currently having an argument with myself, in the grand style of mr. icke, over some of the huge dichotomies i'm finding literally, everywhere. seems the only logical conclusion, to answer the looming question as to what is the right path to take on each question, be firmly founded on the idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and that translates to love of yourself and love of others (as these two things are inseparable). and i'm sure mr. icke does not want to be the victim of eugenics run amok or a victim of good intentions but bad solutions.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by undo

 

Indeed. Personally, I don't think Icke and Maxwell are willing supporters of the NWO, I think they are patsies and have been decieved (besides, Maxwell is too stupid to be an Illuminati

)

well i'm currently having an argument with myself, in the grand style of mr. icke, over some of the huge dichotomies i'm finding literally, everywhere. seems the only logical conclusion, to answer the looming question as to what is the right path to take on each question, be firmly founded on the idea of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and that translates to love of yourself and love of others (as these two things are inseparable). and i'm sure mr. icke does not want to be the victim of eugenics run amok or a victim of good intentions but bad solutions.

I certainly know the feeling, but from my experience, reality is far too subjective to be critically examined in order to find satisfactory answers. So for the time being, "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" is what the whole law rests on and is really the easiest thing to grab hold of in the wake of life. If the God of the Bible, happens to be Enlil or Anu, and Ya'hshuah is Enki, then I will be corrected after death. However, in life, God has revealed himself to me through the Bible as YHVH and the Son of God/Son of Man (which is a fascinating dichotomy when you look at the nature of both terms) has revealed himself as Ya'hshuah.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by undo

 

Indeed. Personally, I don't think Icke and Maxwell are willing supporters of the NWO, I think they are patsies and have been decieved (besides, Maxwell is too stupid to be an Illuminst

)

edit on 20-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

well i don't think maxwell is stupid at all. the prophets (not saying maxwell is a prophet) were visited and they were so scared, they fell on their faces on the ground lol i don't think every visit is that scary, but scary does not necessarily always equal bad. depends on what's being generated. if it's fear for the sake of getting you to worship/work for them, then that's a problem. nod your head like ya know what i mean

p.s. i'm still working on what the 7 thunders are.
hope this is not the foundation for icke's 7 rays. don't think it is, personally, but i've been wrong before. (so definitely not a prophet).

I guess maybe I'm different, but after I watched Zeitgiest (the original, I haven't seen any of the others) I started doing my own research.
Yes I did my own research and didn't take what I was told as (if you will forgive the term) gospel.
Some things I felt they were totally off about to the point of basically just lying.
Some things I felt they were right on the nose about.
I'm not gonna list what each thing I agreed with and each thing I disagreed with were.
I think that is part of the process of doing you own research and thinking for yourself.
But I think the most important part of Zeitgiest is that it made me think.
For myself.

reply to post by Sabreblade


I agree. It is obvious some of the first Zeitgeist movie has had some creative/untrue claims mixed in after researching proper source material.. That was a mistake in my opinion, as they didn't need to be "creative" to get their message across/heard.

I personally, have never been religious, however I have researched a few different types and attended two religious schools in the past and my mum is a Christian.

We all know that the bible and many other "ancient texts" have been altered/edited, and in my opinion, just as others have already stated - It (religion) was implemented to regulate/control the population.

If I was going to "trust" any of the ancient texts; the ones that I think have credibility, but NOT limited to - include:

(1) Early Sumerian Texts/Tablets/paintings/carvings (the bible copied many ideas/aspects from these)

(2) Early Egyption Texts/carvings/paintings (the bible copied many ideas/aspect from these too)

(3) Early Aboriginal Texts/Paintings/Drawing/carvings.

(4) Early Indian Texts/Drawings/Paintings/carvings)

(5) Early Chinese texts/drawings/paintings/carvings.

(6) Ancient North & South American Indian texts/drawings/paintings/carvings

(7) Various other Early South American Cultures (Peru/Maya etc..) texts/drawings/paintings.

(8) Various Early African Cultures (paintings/drawings/carvings/texts)

In my opinion, I think that Earth has been definitely visited by non-human intelligent beings and I think all most of the ancient cultures I have researched just didn't "invent" a "religion". - They copied what they witnessed by their own eyes and recorded it as best they could at the time of the witnessed event.

I believe, you must go back as early in History as possible to start seeing the real reasons why the Bible was invented and later altered/edited, because the only reason why the Bible (or "the word of God") would be altered/edited is to HIDE the truth/s.

And by the way, I am not a Nibiru believer if anyone thinks that after reading my post.

Cheers, From Melbourne, Australia.

Originally posted by kallisti36

Originally posted by shagreen heart
kallisti i'll just ask a simple question:

do you think that first segment of the first zeitgeist movie (which is something you need to be specific about because you keep generalizing all of the zeitgeist movies as bs which is not what we are talking about here and you should really stop that poison the well junk) meant to:

a) get the facts about religious myths wrong?

or

b) illustrate how the sun should be our only "belief" and "religion" because it is real and calculable and benefits us immensely by understanding it's behavior, and even if we don't understand it it is the veritable source of all life on this planet, whereas all the other myths about religions divide us from peace and prosperity?

please choose one and tell us (in your own words, lol) why you think a), or b), is what the first segment of the first zeitgeist movie intended.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care what Zeitgeist intended. Zeitgeist's message is stupid and they set it up with BS claims. I only care about ending the BS claims that Zeitgeist fans spew.

If you don't think the "bad information" was a big deal and that I "missed the point", then leave the thread. That's not the subject of the thread and I don't care about Zeitgeist's philosophy.

it's a really simple question i asked. just pick a or b and explain. if you want to have a REAL conversation then entertain the question so we can proceed to examine at this subject without prejudice or egos, mk? because the issue isn't relgions, and never was, sorry to break it to ya.

as for the rest of your post that evaded the simple answer, let's break down your response:

-"i wittingly ignored the intent of the movie and decided to discredit it entirely based on accidental, unintended, unrelated mix-ups when presenting the religious myths during the first segment of the first zeitgeist movie."

-"zeitgeist's message is stupid". we are now 6 years old. "set it up with bs claims" as if you somehow knew they intentionally got the info wrong.
so what is stupid about not believing in these love-dividing myths that cause us to hurt and kill and hate eachother, and not just believe in nature and reality? and you think they set it up with fake info to drive this point? they didn't even need to mention any religions specifically to talk about this, so no, i don't think they meant to do it on purpose amigo. also let's grow up and drop the name calling, mr. christian.

-get over it? even if the info is wrong, how is it a bad thing? it's their own ignorance, and they didn't ask for your guidance or correction, they can believe whatever they want to believe without you judging them. and i'm gonna ask you one more time to stop generalizing the entire movie/s. you admitted early on in the thread that this thread is only aimed at specific segments of the first movie, but now you just want all of zeitgeist to dissapear. you need to grow up, stop making generalizations, stop the name calling, and have a real conversation with the people who are trying to come to YOUR thread and tell you what's up.

i will not leave the thread, hahaha, i'm being on topic and you're ignoring what i'm bringing to your thread because it's threatening to it. just like you can't tell us to "never post zeitgeist bs ever again omg it is stealing the chrishuns and getting myths wrong!!!!1 people might wake up!!!!"

you are knowingly ignoring facts by witholding discourse from the message o that segment, which is, in fact, and let me state this extremely explicitly for the sake of anyone who is coming to this thread and tryin to understand your ramblings, *THE POINT OF THAT FIRST SEGMENT OF THE FIRST MOVIE OF ZEITGEIST WAS TO TAKE HUMANITY BACK TO IT'S ROOTS AND RESPECT AND BELIEVE IN NATURE BECAUSE IT IS RELIABLE AND IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN UNDERSTAND TO ADVANCE TOGETHER AS ONE".

like i said, the movie DIDN'T EVEN NEED to mention any religions to make this point. they did, they got some things wrong, but that is soooo far from being relevant that it doesn't even matter, because the point of that segment that you are intellectually getting off to by stomping on it, has in fact, nothing to do with religions in essence, and to try and execute the character of this thing with appeals to authority, popularity, and all these other logical fallacies you're oozing, don't matter in any way shape or form. the religions ARE the problem, not zeitgeist. people like YOU are the problem, bickering and keeping the hate raging. religious MYTHS have nothing to do with reality and our world and our livelihood and our advancement together with nature into the future.

i know you understand what i'm saying, i know you understand what you're reading. i know you're upset zeitgeist got information about religious myths incorrect, but that is not the point of zeitgeist, and by willingly ignoring that message, you are just makin an ass out of yourself and are obliviously shining the light on yourself as the kind of people the movie is warning us about.

let's pretend for a second that you could change zeitgeist to say everything correctly and factually. hahaha, guess what? the message is the same: drop the nonsense, love one another as one, learn from nature to thrive together and take care of eachother unconditionally for the betterment and future of our species and the world itself.

reply to post by shagreen heart


Great Post, A Star for You. I 100% agree with you. Some people just don't want to think outside of their "trusted personal headspace/box" You have to question everything & ask questions, research & even question yourself, because we have been "conditioned" by the system from birth.

In some parts, yes we all know the first movie did have some false claims & errors, but the 2nd movie is a lot better sourced and I havn't seen anyone prove any of that wrong yet. I've seen the latest one (Moving Forward) & it seems fine at this stage.

Remember People, Don't be too quick to shoot the messenger, even if he makes a few mistakes along the way.

Cheers

I have found this Hymm I Am not shure it there is any Authenticity on this Hymm from Egypt

but as you read it and lay the Pareall of Jesus and Osiris(Nimrod) & Horus
( Either Horus is to believed to be a Reincarnation of Osiris Either Nimrod is Osiris or Horus The reincarnation her Son Husband pretty much explains it in this Hymm ) if it Authentic or not


Hymn to Isis

paulocoelhoblog.com...

The Attention Grabbers


I am the prostitute and the saint < Like mary magdalene ?

I am the wife and the virgin < like Mary

I am the woman who gives birth and she who never procreated < Like Mary Mother of Jesus

discovered in Nag Hammadi, 1947 ? written either 4th century BC or 4th century AD

Nag Hammadi
en.wikipedia.org...

Nag Hammadi library
en.wikipedia.org...




Virgin ! gave birth but never Never Procreated! and Discovered in 1947 ???

well another website that somewhat the same

Isis, the Egyptian Goddess, is mentioned several times in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
What is discovered at Nag Hammadi plays a key role in the plot.


home.clara.net...

I am the whore and the saint < Sounds like Mary magiline
I am the wife and the virgin <
I am the sterile one, and my children are many <
I am the mother of my father < giving birth to her God/Brother like Mary giving birth to god in the Flesh

Hymn to Goddess IsIs


The Hymm to ISIS

Now if it is made during the 3 or 4th century why would priest created it or even have shown any similarity's of Hours / Jesus Isis/Jesus
WE ALL KNOW what the Time period of the Council of Nicaea is ! Right Folks

Could just maybe they used a Little bit of the so call Egyptian mythology in the Mix at the 1st council ?
as this could been translated copied down of the Original Hymm if there ever was one that existed yet no one can say that it was written carved in stone anywhere in Egypt ! there is alott of similarity's Of Osiris and Jesus than Hours thrown in the Pagan Holiday's of ( Winter Solstice) and dont forget that Romans Adopted some of the Deity's in their religion Isis as one of Them?

here some thing we all should consider !


yet Horus is claimed to be a Reincarnation of Osiris either a Clone physically or Spiritually
as Myself sometimes have a hard time to comprehend what Isis is talking about either her SON or HUSBAND
Or Both TABOO Incest as the Word Nimrod can be either OR Nimrod another son of ISIS or it Horus or Osiris

Just to add in there !
What does ISIS resemble as ! ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7c41e3b897d.jpg[/atsimg]

what does this Sumerian Carving Resemble As

what does Horus Resemble as ! ?
(note see Isis wings (Angelic) see Horus Hawk Head , See The Green Man Osiris
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b03f9d3f881e.jpg[/atsimg]

what does this Sumerian Deity ? Resemble As
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53054cda2732.jpg[/atsimg]

Horus ?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6f57fe591a3.jpg[/atsimg]
an this Christan/ Jewish / Muslim Messenger resemble as !

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/012b0c905077.jpg[/atsimg]

And People say there is no connection between , Babylonian/Sumerian , Egyptian & Christian Myths ! ?




ohh look
Zeitgeist the Film Guide
filmguide.wikia.com...


Im ON the Fence

People im just trying to figure out on my Own and im not battling anyone just seeing the similarity's

reply to post by Wolfenz


mesopotamian and egyptian connections are all over the place. clearly the artifacts and artforms indicate that.

where the problem arises is assuming we understand what they mean by "virgin," as there are any number of possible answers, such as:

1. the word virgin in the bible is also the same word for young woman or young unmarried woman.

2. the opposite word, whore, suggests that the word virgin refers to a person who remains loyal to their belief system and none other. commiting adultery in this regard, means following other gods.

3. the virgin is a prominent constellation even back in ancient mesopotamia, and is depicted as a woman standing on the back of a lion. so it also has a political-social interpretation, that of royalty of a certain line, with its roots in mesopotamia.

4. in a mesopotamian view, the virgin might be the female in the temple ceremonies, who did not take part in the orgies because her role was "other." perhaps an overseer, rule maker, non-participant, who came to be thought of as the ideal or who was "sacrificed" to the god (taken to the chamber of the god at the top of the temple, and left there for the god of that temple to commune with in some fashion)

5. a virgin might be someone committed to asceticism as regards sex

6. a virgin might be someone who was impregnated by a god via artificial insemination of some kind.

7. a virgin might be someone who gave birth via cloning, not via intercourse.

etc.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

I am the prostitute and the saint < Like mary magdalene ?

Actually if you look at the text, Mary Magdalene is not named as the adulterous woman or the sinful woman. The connection of Mary Magdalene to these figures is a Roman Catholic tradition. According to Orthodox tradition, she was a righteous woman and Satan sent seven devils to torment her because of her righteousness (like Job). Either one might be true, but I don't know for certain, because it's not in the text.

discovered in Nag Hammadi, 1947 ? written either 4th century BC or 4th century AD

Nag Hammadi
en.wikipedia.org...

Nag Hammadi library
en.wikipedia.org...

I don't give alot of credence to the Nag Hammadi library. The Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi codices post-date the canonical gospels by at least a century and appear rely heavily on the flawed Diatesseron. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas, which is the earliest proto-Gnostic gospel, follows mnemonic pattern unique to the Diatesseron when translated into Syriac.

Anyways, psuedo-Christian mystery traditions were common at this time, many of them Gnostic, so it's not a surprise that heterodox Christians would write something like this.

Isis, the Egyptian Goddess, is mentioned several times in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Credibility of this site is now in the toilet.

home.clara.net...

I am the whore and the saint < Sounds like Mary magiline

As I said before, only tradition links Mary Magdalene to the adulteress.

I am the sterile one, and my children are many <

Admittedly there has been debate over this for centuries but: the Gospels report Ya'hshuah having brothers, James being the most famous. I personally don't know, but if Mary had other children then she wouldn't be sterile. Also, Isis certainly wasn't sterile.

I am the mother of my father < giving birth to her God/Brother like Mary giving birth to god in the Flesh

Evidence of Gnostic lack of understanding in the scriptures. This is a misunderstanding of the trinity which can often be traced to the Diatesseron. For instance Muhammed was exposed to some form of Christianity in Mecca, but it has been speculated that he was exposed to the Diatesseron or a low quality Gospel, because he believed that the Christian trinity was God, Isa (Jesus), and Miryam (Mary). Anyways, the error that is made here is that Mary gave birth to the father, which is wrong. Mary is indeed the Theotokos (God bearer), but she gave birth to the Son. This is how the trinity works: the Father, Son (logos), and Holy Spirit are three distinct personalities with one will; they are God. The Father is God but is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; The Son is God but is not the Father or Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is God but not the Son or the Father.

At any rate, this is perfect evidence of a much later date, because the trinity doctrine wasn't established or even elaborated on until the third century.
Hymn to Goddess IsIs

Now if it is made during the 3 or 4th century why would priest created it or even have shown any similarity's of Hours / Jesus Isis/Jesus
WE ALL KNOW what the Time period of the Council of Nicaea is ! Right Folks

Ah, so even the source admits it is a late date. No priest would have made this, it was definately Gnostics.

Could just maybe they used a Little bit of the so call Egyptian mythology in the Mix at the 1st council ?
as this could been translated copied down of the Original Hymm if there ever was one that existed yet no one can say that it was written carved in stone anywhere in Egypt ! there is alott of similarity's Of Osiris and Jesus than Hours thrown in the Pagan Holiday's of ( Winter Solstice) and dont forget that Romans Adopted some of the Deity's in their religion Isis as one of Them?

The Romans never worshiped Isis or any god from the Egyptian pantheon. Also, there aren't really any similarities between Horus, Isis, and Ya'hshuah. Perhaps the depictions of Mary with her son look like Isis with Horus, but this is a much later tradition and could have been used to convert pagans.

yet Horus is claimed to be a Reincarnation of Osiris either a Clone physically or Spiritually
as Myself sometimes have a hard time to comprehend what Isis is talking about either her SON or HUSBAND
Or Both TABOO Incest as the Word Nimrod can be either OR Nimrod another son of ISIS or it Horus or Osiris

Horus is the son of Osiris, he is never ever referred to as the incarnation. Nor, is Horus a god-man, he was entirely god. Also, Nimrod is not a son of Isis, I don't know where you are getting this info.

Just to add in there !
What does ISIS resemble as ! ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7c41e3b897d.jpg[/atsimg]

A bird

what does this Sumerian Carving Resemble As

what does Horus Resemble as ! ?
(note see Isis wings (Angelic) see Horus Hawk Head , See The Green Man Osiris
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b03f9d3f881e.jpg[/atsimg]

what does this Sumerian Deity ? Resemble As
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53054cda2732.jpg[/atsimg]

Horus ?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6f57fe591a3.jpg[/atsimg]
an this Christan/ Jewish / Muslim Messenger resemble as !

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/012b0c905077.jpg[/atsimg]

And People say there is no connection between , Babylonian/Sumerian , Egyptian & Christian Myths ! ?

Oh, no I never said there was no connection between Biblical myths and Sumerian myths. There are a ton of them! The Egyptian comparisons on the other hand are pretty lame. By the way, aside from the Cherubim and Seraphim who look like animals, Messenger Angels who look human are never described as having wings.

People im just trying to figure out on my Own and im not battling anyone just seeing the similarity's

Nothing wrong with that as long as you are willing to listen to the other side. Too many Zeitgeist and Acharya S fans will simply not listen when their claims are thoroughly debunked (inb4 "So is the Bible LOL")

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

mesopotamian and egyptian connections are all over the place. clearly the artifacts and artforms indicate that.

where the problem arises is assuming we understand what they mean by "virgin," as there are any number of possible answers, such as:

1. the word virgin in the bible is also the same word for young woman or young unmarried woman.

2. the opposite word, whore, suggests that the word virgin refers to a person who remains loyal to their belief system and none other. commiting adultery in this regard, means following other gods.

3. the virgin is a prominent constellation even back in ancient mesopotamia, and is depicted as a woman standing on the back of a lion. so it also has a political-social interpretation, that of royalty of a certain line, with its roots in mesopotamia.

4. in a mesopotamian view, the virgin might be the female in the temple ceremonies, who did not take part in the orgies because her role was "other." perhaps an overseer, rule maker, non-participant, who came to be thought of as the ideal or who was "sacrificed" to the god (taken to the chamber of the god at the top of the temple, and left there for the god of that temple to commune with in some fashion)

5. a virgin might be someone committed to asceticism as regards sex

6. a virgin might be someone who was impregnated by a god via artificial insemination of some kind.

7. a virgin might be someone who gave birth via cloning, not via intercourse.

etc.

True very true it can mean a lot of things

just the KJV bible just the same can be misinterpret as many scribes attempt to translate the Original cannons of the Torah and New Testement written my people named Mark, Luke, John, Matthew and Paul as in Hebrew & Aramaic the Main Original context Aramaic/Proto-Hebrew alphabet as its true that there is No Vowels l in the Hebrew Writing What NO VOWELS ! ! ! but that's where its the problem !
Unless if there was ever dots or marks around the Letter/words like it is today ... without the Vowels
it could of mean the Opposite different meaning from a simple mistranslation Assumption its like reading short hand with only knowing very basics ! Scribes were playing scrabble!



Example Thy body (was) Helped (by) C*R* - English
Thyהגוף היה עזר לרפא Hebrew



CR
Cure
Care
Cera

IMO, anyone that tries to use any kind of religeous beliefs to explain anything on this planet needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Anyone that listens and accepts anything that anyone spouting this s**t has to say, is just weakminded and obviously cannot survive without "a purpose"and someone to follow.
The people spouting this s**t know they are talking rubbish and are just trying to gain money or control.

Thats the sole purpose for almost every religion out there, except maybe for religions like Taoism and Buddism.