ZEITGEIST, The Movie [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

PDA

View Full Version : ZEITGEIST, The Movie

ilponn

23-08-2007, 07:41 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

mada88

23-08-2007, 08:21 PM

excellent video. Must see clips http://www.redicecreations.com/mustseeclips.html

father_pyramid

24-08-2007, 09:36 PM

Great video, how accurate is it though? It's definitely incorrect about the origin of the word "hours". I agree with alot of what the video shows but just wondering if anyone here can refute these "debunkings" I found when I was flipping through colbertnation's messageboards...

"First off, the video is full of misinformation about Horus. He was baptized? Oh really! I would love to see a source for that!

Most of the supposed parallels are completely untrue!

Actually, Muslim apologists have been trying to do this for centuries--to say that Christianity is really just another form of paganism. But that's a lie.

Most of the information in this video seems to come from Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999), which is a sensationalist book which has zero academic credibility. If you want to learn about Horus you can read the ancient myths about him--
* Egyptian Mythology: Horus
* Encyclopedia Mythica: Horus
* The Eye Of Horus
* Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris

Let's go over just some of the data:

1. Horus was not born of a Virgin--that's a lie.
2. Horus was not baptized. That's a complete fabrication. "Anup the Baptizer"?--show me where you find that! That's a lie.
3. Horus never walked on water. He performed miracles, but raising the dead and walking on water were not among them. Nor did he cast out demons.
4. Horus had disciples--but you can't show me a single reference to his having twelve. That's a lie.
5. Horus never taught in the temple at age 12. That's a lie. Read the accounts above--it's not there.
6. Where was ever said that was Horus crucified? That's a lie! He died in a later version of the story and was brought back to life--but Jesus' "resurrection" was more than a mere coming back to life. His body was transformed and changed. Anyways, it was only later added to the Horus legend.

That's just off the top of my head. That should give you some indication though about the reliability of this film. In short, its claims are lies that are told to sell books. But no scholar in the world would accept this stuff--only the ignorant. Anybody can get a book published or a video made and say whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

Moreover, to think that Jesus didn't exist is absolutely, positively unfounded, unhistorical, and unrealistic.

Those who opposed Chrstianity from the very beginning never asserted that Jesus didn't exist--in fact, they made all kinds of slanderous claims against Jesus. But they never asserted he was a myth.

In fact, there's more evidence Jesus existed than virtually any one else in antiquity.

... and there isn't a single respectable scholar today--Christian or secular--who would make such a claim. Only those who haven't studied the issue seriously could say such a thing.

Hope that helps...

***UPDATE***

I just want to add a few things here to address some of the comments made below.

One person--who safely posted anonymously--makes the claim that my own sources refute me. They post the supposed parallels from the article [Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris], which first lists the "claims"... then refutes them. The "anonymous" poster didn't finish the article! This of course highlights the kind of ignorance of and/or misrespresentation of sources we're dealing with here.

Secondly, another person explained that the sources for the movie have been posted on-line. Follow the link and--what a shocker!--the primary source for the movie's claims about Jesus and Christianity is said to be Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999). Again, this book is NOT an academic work and has ZERO credibility. According to this very site, one of S's sources is said to be John Allegro--a man whose work has frequently been condemned by scholars.

For example, when John Allegro attempted to publish a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, fourteen Oxford scholars wrote to the publisher and demanded it be pulled--it was an absolutely inaccurate translation! The book was pulled and the publisher even apologized! A critique was written by John Strugnell, which meticulously revealed in a line-by-line treatment the errors and which was longer than Allegro's book itself! [See "Notes en marge du volume V des 'Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordon'" in Revue de Qumran 7 (1963): 163-76. For more on the debacle see, James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead See Scrolls (San Francisco: HaperCollins, 2002), 381-403.]

The fact is, no scholar takes Allegro's work seriously. You will only see his name mentioned in academic journals such as the Journal for the Historical Jesus (not a particularly conservative journal!) in articles listing the most outrageous examples of poor scholarship.

Of course, you won't find scholars quoting from S's book either.

Again, read the ancient sources themselves and see what they say about Horus--he was not baptized, crucified, etc. It may sell movies and it may appeal to those who already want to dismiss Christianity, but the Jesus-Horus comparison has really no academic value whatsoever."

bigus_dickus

25-08-2007, 12:26 AM

***UPDATE***

I just want to add a few things here to address some of the comments made below.

One person--who safely posted anonymously--makes the claim that my own sources refute me. They post the supposed parallels from the article [Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris], which first lists the "claims"... then refutes them. The "anonymous" poster didn't finish the article! This of course highlights the kind of ignorance of and/or misrespresentation of sources we're dealing with here.

Secondly, another person explained that the sources for the movie have been posted on-line. Follow the link and--what a shocker!--the primary source for the movie's claims about Jesus and Christianity is said to be Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999). Again, this book is NOT an academic work and has ZERO credibility. According to this very site, one of S's sources is said to be John Allegro--a man whose work has frequently been condemned by scholars.

For example, when John Allegro attempted to publish a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, fourteen Oxford scholars wrote to the publisher and demanded it be pulled--it was an absolutely inaccurate translation! The book was pulled and the publisher even apologized! A critique was written by John Strugnell, which meticulously revealed in a line-by-line treatment the errors and which was longer than Allegro's book itself! [See "Notes en marge du volume V des 'Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordon'" in Revue de Qumran 7 (1963): 163-76. For more on the debacle see, James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead See Scrolls (San Francisco: HaperCollins, 2002), 381-403.]

The fact is, no scholar takes Allegro's work seriously. You will only see his name mentioned in academic journals such as the Journal for the Historical Jesus (not a particularly conservative journal!) in articles listing the most outrageous examples of poor scholarship.

Of course, you won't find scholars quoting from S's book either.

Again, read the ancient sources themselves and see what they say about Horus--he was not baptized, crucified, etc. It may sell movies and it may appeal to those who already want to dismiss Christianity, but the Jesus-Horus comparison has really no academic value whatsoever."

i have already exposed this agenda in another thread. however, nobody seemed to think it was important. they prefer to believe disinformation, just because it suits them. i can view it only as a form of psychopathology, no pun intended. people have issues that need to resolve with themselves first, then step back and see the whole picture clearly.

these people make their own assumptions and most of them are influenced by each other. their assumptions are not proven, they are merely assumptions. very often they create their own evidence to support their claims and lie about their sources.

the maker of this video, is some anonymous and probably uneducated guy, who has taken the popular disinformation published by these people, whose purpose is to promote atheism. in order to do so, they try to "prove" religions wrong and invent terms as astrotheology and thus promote astrology as the only true religion. what happens, when people believe this propaganda, they turn to the tarot, pendulums, ouija boards, crystals, magic, other religions, psychics and other stuff that we call "new age" and become disoriented.

to be disoriented is probably the worst thing (choice) for a human being, because he/she loses his/her spiritual and mental integrity, which disassociates them from functioning with moral standards and provokes them to center their intentions to their egos. that, from a psychological point of view.

this is not to say that this person has done it deliberately because he is a "darkie". however, educated people who know where they stand, who they are and what they wish for, cannot be affected by any propaganda like that.

my perspective is only based on the first part of the video which is about religion (stripped of philosophy completely), because i haven't watched the rest of it.

that's what you get when someone who has never studied this stuff, decides to do so researching only sources that have agendas and sell propaganda.

father_pyramid

25-08-2007, 05:57 PM

i have already exposed this agenda in another thread. however, nobody seemed to think it was important. they prefer to believe disinformation, just because it suits them. i can view it only as a form of psychopathology, no pun intended. people have issues that need to resolve with themselves first, then step back and see the whole picture clearly.

these people make their own assumptions and most of them are influenced by each other. their assumptions are not proven, they are merely assumptions. very often they create their own evidence to support their claims and lie about their sources.

the maker of this video, is some anonymous and probably uneducated guy, who has taken the popular disinformation published by these people, whose purpose is to promote atheism. in order to do so, they try to "prove" religions wrong and invent terms as astrotheology and thus promote astrology as the only true religion. what happens, when people believe this propaganda, they turn to the tarot, pendulums, ouija boards, crystals, magic, other religions, psychics and other stuff that we call "new age" and become disoriented.

to be disoriented is probably the worst thing (choice) for a human being, because he/she loses his/her spiritual and mental integrity, which disassociates them from functioning with moral standards and provokes them to center their intentions to their egos. that, from a psychological point of view.

this is not to say that this person has done it deliberately because he is a "darkie". however, educated people who know where they stand, who they are and what they wish for, cannot be affected by any propaganda like that.

my perspective is only based on the first part of the video which is about religion (stripped of philosophy completely), because i haven't watched the rest of it.

that's what you get when someone who has never studied this stuff, decides to do so researching only sources that have agendas and sell propaganda.

Interesting. My stance on this issue is that athiesm, religion, new age, etc., is, as you say, disorientation. I have done some research, I'm no expert, but I would say there is plenty of suspicious evidence to say that Jesus is a myth based on previous myths and mythology, and I agree with some of what Michael Tsarion presents about ancient mythology, although judging from you're comments I doubt you'll agree.

I think that athiesm and religion both "disorientate" us. Here, I agree with David Icke, athiesm, makes us believe everything is a cosmic accident, this is all there, life's a bitch and then you die. Religion, makes us believe in a superior being.

Both of these belief systems make us powerless, when it is to the contrary, we create reality.

As for the video, I don't really think it is supporting athiesm, as much as just meant to be a "wake up call", to do some research of your own to see that things aren't exactly what they seem to be. It is trying to show that we've been lied to. The errors in the information presented are unforturnate, but like a ufologist's thoughts 'it only takes one incidence to be true, to make it true'. In other words, disagree with part 1, or not, there is a "conspiracy" of sorts. The video is just a wake up call to that. The video does not offer much on solutions.

bigus_dickus

26-08-2007, 03:00 AM

Interesting. My stance on this issue is that athiesm, religion, new age, etc., is, as you say, disorientation. I have done some research, I'm no expert, but I would say there is plenty of suspicious evidence to say that Jesus is a myth based on previous myths and mythology, and I agree with some of what Michael Tsarion presents about ancient mythology, although judging from you're comments I doubt you'll agree.

General sense of "untrue story, rumor" is from 1840. Mythical first attested 1678.

i don't have a problem with myths. they are stories, but not "fairy tales". the word myth is greek and it means story.

look at some semantics here. the word myth means story that humans can comprehend. this means that conveyed in a different way would make it incomprehensible for the particular humans in a particular society. so all stories and myths are appropriate for the people that they are made for.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=myth&searchmode=none
myth
1830, from Gk. mythos "speech, thought, story, myth," of unknown origin.
Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

myths, are usually cosmic, supernatural or symbolic events, that get anthropomorphized. anthropomorphisized, means "humanized", it means that they are given human attributes and meanings, so that people can receive the message with the knowledge that they already possess.

now, the word "story", derives from the greek word "historia", from where you also have the word "history". which means, that the words "myth", "story" and "history" have relevant meanings or very close to each other.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=history&searchmode=none
history
1390, "relation of incidents" (true or false), from O.Fr. historie, from L. historia "narrative, account, tale, story," from Gk. historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from historein "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge," from PIE *wid-tor-, from base *weid- "to know," lit. "to see" (see vision). Related to Gk. idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know." In M.E., not differentiated from story; sense of "record of past events" probably first attested 1485. Sense of "systematic account (without reference to time) of a set of natural phenomena" (1567) is now obs. except in natural history. What is historic (1669) is noted or celebrated in history; what is historical (1561) deals with history. Historian "writer of history in the higher sense," distinguished from a mere annalist or chronicler, is from 1531. The O.E. word was þeod-wita.

story
"account of some happening," c.1225, "narrative of important events or celebrated persons of the past," from O.Fr. estorie, from L.L. storia and L. historia "history, account, tale, story" (see history). Meaning "recital of true events" first recorded c.1375; sense of "narrative of fictitious events meant to entertain" is from c.1500. Not differentiated from history till 1500s. As a euphemism for "a lie" it dates from 1697. Meaning "newspaper article" is from 1892. Story-teller is from 1709. Story-line first attested 1941. That's another story "that requires different treatment" is attested from 1818. Story of my life "sad truth" first recorded 1938.

these semantics "tricks" tend to get confusing to the point that there's no way to tell what is truth and what is false.

on the other hand, people can have a basic understanding of what holds value as "truth", what is possible and what is symbolic. most times, meanings are being confused and beliefs vary with respect to truth, possibility, or symbolism. that is to say that, there are people who believe the Jesus' story to be the truth, others believe that it is not necessarily truth but highly possible to have happened, or to happen and others regard it as symbolic of "higher" meanings otherwise incomprehensible.

of course, there are people who dismiss everything. that is to say that, even if there is a literary, historical, social or psychological value to stories, printed in any book or scripture, they deny this particular function.

i can make a suggestion though. lets hypothesize that Jesus never existed as described in the bible, and consequently, none of the other "holy" beings existed, namely Krishna, Siddhartha Gautama and others. would this mean that the existence of the particular time of human beings is impossible? i would suggest, definitely not. because for one, there have been historical records of people who have embodies the aspects of the personality of those beings mentioned above and the effect that they had in society and human history. there are also documented evidence of these type of people performing "miracles" and extraordinary things, according to their philosophy and behavior, but also to the beliefs of the observers. i think that the power of belief in human psychology, psychophysiology, behavior and construct of reality is indisputable, therefore has to be taken into account seriously.

the role of 'miracles' in a human being's life, can play an important role to their spiritual orientation and the moral values that they themselves set and get to manifest. i can also argue, that any one of those mythical or pragmatical personalities, can be 'manifested', not just supernaturally by God himself, but by teaching and training since the birth of the said human.

thus, it is highly possible that such personalities came to being due to the spiritual and emotional need of the social environment that they appeared in. for example, there would be no need for a Jesus to manifest, if the people of the planet or the particular region had no interest in receiving the messages and teachings he had to convey to them in order to lead their lives with no turmoil, lies and deceptions. maybe also the 'elite' tyrannic administration of the time was what made such manifestation possible, having diverted people from social compassionate beings, to egocentric, greedy and aggressive ones.

i am not going to argue the existence or not of Jesus, because such thing to do, i think is futile. no one can really know at this point, because no one was there, or has such memory from, say, past lives experience.
what i am going to argue though, is the possibility and the high probability of the existence of the virtues and human values that a persona like Jesus demonstrates. some scholars also argue, that the real Jesus was some person with different life history, but similar characteristics, even in performing miraculous acts.

for the sake of the argument: http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius01.html

apart from that example, there are also many others from all around the world. in my opinion, this is not strange at all, since all humans are a big family, meaning that they have similar values and virtues, such as love, compassion, peace, happiness, etc. i mean that a happy Indian person, is as happy as a French person. we all laugh, cry, get angry, hurt, depressed the same way and for pretty much the same reasons, no matter our location, race, education, ancestry.

I think that athiesm and religion both "disorientate" us. Here, I agree with David Icke, athiesm, makes us believe everything is a cosmic accident, this is all there, life's a bitch and then you die. Religion, makes us believe in a superior being.

my opinion is, that disorientation comes when someone stops holding the same values, or hope and courage and does not know where to turn and where to ask for help, hence the disorientation.

it's fine by me for people to be atheists, or whatever they wish to be, as long as they know who they are and what they want and are true and honest to themselves.

it's not fine when people try to convince others, by incriminating them because of the ideas that they have, or by lying to them posing as knowledgeable and wise, by judging them and classify them with their own prejudiced ideas and beliefs. this is what causes conflict, because all sense of respect of human life and rights gets thrown out of the window.

that is to say that, a self proclaimed christian, who believes and practices the values of unconditional love and compassion that Jesus teaches, is impossible to attack another person who he perceives as enemy. that would automatically render him "non-christian", or even "anti-christian". but, as we can see in our world today, the word "christian" has taken a much different meaning that it is supposed to. so, you have people accusing christianity because of the actions of, for example, the Bush family, but i can't refer to the Bush family as a christian one, when not even one action of them i can call christian, rather quite the opposite!

As for the video, I don't really think it is supporting athiesm, as much as just meant to be a "wake up call", to do some research of your own to see that things aren't exactly what they seem to be. It is trying to show that we've been lied to. The errors in the information presented are unforturnate, but like a ufologist's thoughts 'it only takes one incidence to be true, to make it true'. In other words, disagree with part 1, or not, there is a "conspiracy" of sorts. The video is just a wake up call to that. The video does not offer much on solutions.

i don't know if the video supports atheism.. i have watched only the first part of it. but, i have researched the sources that the maker published for creating the first part and most of them are authors and self proclaimed scholars, who indeed identify themselves as atheists and admit that they work on that agenda. this is just an observation. however, it can undoubtedly be a "wake up call" as you say, in the sense that it can make people think that their reality is not merely what it seems to be, but what they manifest with their emotions.

father_pyramid

26-08-2007, 04:43 AM

my opinion is, that disorientation comes when someone stops holding the same values, or hope and courage and does not know where to turn and where to ask for help, hence the disorientation.

it's fine by me for people to be atheists, or whatever they wish to be, as long as they know who they are and what they want and are true and honest to themselves.

it's not fine when people try to convince others, by incriminating them because of the ideas that they have, or by lying to them posing as knowledgeable and wise, by judging them and classify them with their own prejudiced ideas and beliefs. this is what causes conflict, because all sense of respect of human life and rights gets thrown out of the window.

that is to say that, a self proclaimed christian, who believes and practices the values of unconditional love and compassion that Jesus teaches, is impossible to attack another person who he perceives as enemy. that would automatically render him "non-christian", or even "anti-christian". but, as we can see in our world today, the word "christian" has taken a much different meaning that it is supposed to. so, you have people accusing christianity because of the actions of, for example, the Bush family, but i can't refer to the Bush family as a christian one, when not even one action of them i can call christian, rather quite the opposite!

Well put, I agree. Anyone who believes and practices the values of unconditional love and compassion sits well with me. I don't mean to condem athiests or christians or anyone. Anyone who lives a life that would resignate the moto "peace is the path, there is no path to peace", is good in my books.

father_pyramid

26-08-2007, 05:04 AM

i don't have a problem with myths. they are stories, but not "fairy tales". the word myth is greek and it means story.

look at some semantics here. the word myth means story that humans can comprehend. this means that conveyed in a different way would make it incomprehensible for the particular humans in a particular society. so all stories and myths are appropriate for the people that they are made for.

myths, are usually cosmic, supernatural or symbolic events, that get anthropomorphized. anthropomorphisized, means "humanized", it means that they are given human attributes and meanings, so that people can receive the message with the knowledge that they already possess.

now, the word "story", derives from the greek word "historia", from where you also have the word "history". which means, that the words "myth", "story" and "history" have relevant meanings or very close to each other.

these semantics "tricks" tend to get confusing to the point that there's no way to tell what is truth and what is false.

on the other hand, people can have a basic understanding of what holds value as "truth", what is possible and what is symbolic. most times, meanings are being confused and beliefs vary with respect to truth, possibility, or symbolism. that is to say that, there are people who believe the Jesus' story to be the truth, others believe that it is not necessarily truth but highly possible to have happened, or to happen and others regard it as symbolic of "higher" meanings otherwise incomprehensible.

This is spot on.

woghd

28-08-2007, 05:25 AM

The problem with zeitgeist is that it has SO many inaccuracies, especially in the first third of the movie, that it cannot be trusted. I won't get into them, as others have broken them down elsewhere, but some of my favorites are the errors in the story of Horus, Krishna, and the derivatives of certain words such as "Horizon" and "Sunset", which appear to have been completely made up on the spot. It's so bad that it's embarrassing. So no, as much as I agree with much of the movie, I cannot recommend it to anyone, especially an educated person, for fear of embarrassing myself as well.

Archangel

father_pyramid

29-08-2007, 04:38 AM

father_pyramid

05-09-2007, 12:30 AM

I tend to agree, the "Horizon" and "Sunset" bit was laughable. :S

I changed my mind. Kinda jumped to conclusions on that one, I am skeptical now.

pi33

18-09-2007, 08:05 PM

One of the best videos I have seen on the web.

mariag

21-09-2007, 05:19 PM

I think this video is one of the best that i have ever seen... However it has its wrongs too . But as I see it ,it is a great movie for awakening and in a whole , it pretty much cover what is going on today ...
It is great and I recomend it to all of my friends and the users of my community... :)

elysiumfire

15-11-2007, 12:51 AM

Hi There,

I found the video quite disturbing, but it does seem to me to be 3 separate subjects cobbled together into one.

I am sure that the video would stand up quite well without the first part regarding Christianity. The symbolisms and cross-references may be in error, but the whole of the first part rests entirely upon the claim that Christianity was politicized during Constantine's reign at Nicea in 325 AD...which I quite agree with. To be sure, the first part of the video is actually the least disturbing, once it goes into part 2, it takes on a much darker, and more worrisome complexion.

It is quite a disappointment that whilst the presentation of the video is quite good, it is let down by the factual inaccuracy of its content, and what we need most important of all is 'factual accuracy'. You cannot educate people into a 'awakend' state if your truth is only partly 'true'...all you will achieve is a yawn and the turning away of the attention. If conspiracy theorists want to activate the conscience of the listener or reader, they had better get their facts right first. I will not allow myself to be taken for a fool twice in the one life time. Governments or secret societies might enslave me, but they will not be allowed to con me again and again and again.

Best wishes

revolutionary_jam

15-11-2007, 01:26 AM

righto so if many of the parallels in part 1 were wrong, what is the actual evidence for Christianity to be based on astrology? Is there any?

razed1

15-11-2007, 02:18 AM

this movie is very good

there are no mistakes in it

the 3 topics , are the 3 topics that ppl need to wake up to at this time

to the skeptics, i would dig further into research and use common sense

mariag

20-11-2007, 07:26 AM

righto so if many of the parallels in part 1 were wrong, what is the actual evidence for Christianity to be based on astrology? Is there any?

I can think of a few.. If you study astrology you get known to some certain facts and similarity.Like the 12 apostels equals 12 zodial signs. Jesus-Horus.Krsna equals the sun etc. And what about being born , killed and risen again? It all signg about how the sun moves its directions .Then again one can´t tell for sure that this man jesus didn´t exist. He might have and he might even had been a miracoulus man , but I doubt that the Bible tells the correct storý , sorry.
I think that maybe ther was a man , like many others, a special man with special skills that did some good things for humanity .He might have been a starchild for as far as I´m concerned but who am I to tell.I was not there was I? Then again at the time when this Jesus should have lived there was not many educated people that had writing neither reading skills , and so they spent a lot of times by the fire telling eachother amazing stories, we see this even today at camps etc. People has always loved to tell stories . Who am I to say that it is true or not?

amercury

21-11-2007, 05:49 AM

I liked the movie...I've studied astrology for years and found the astro-theology portion interesting. (Although I think The Pharmacratic Inquisition movie did a better job explaining that subject)
I also think the movie is good for getting out the truth concerning the federal reserve. And the Aaron Russo interview is good.

BTW can anybody help out a technological ignoramus like me? I've been trying to download and burn this movie for a friend who has asked me for it, but I can't seem to manage.
I've downloaded the bittorrent and everytime I click on the link to download the movie, nothing happens. The bittorrent page comes up and says it is downloading, but it isn't.:confused:

mariag

21-11-2007, 10:24 AM

bigus_dickus

21-11-2007, 11:28 AM

righto so if many of the parallels in part 1 were wrong, what is the actual evidence for Christianity to be based on astrology? Is there any?

there isn't. there is evidence in scriptures where we can see influences of pre existing theories and philosophies such as astrology, but this is not evidence that christianity is based on them, rather that these elements were later additions and modifications by people who were linking christian teachings to their local traditions and myths.

amercury

21-11-2007, 02:44 PM

I have the film in my pc if you want I could IM you with the film

Yes please! I can try to figure it out from there. Thanks a lot!:D

mariag

21-11-2007, 02:52 PM

Yes please! I can try to figure it out from there. Thanks a lot!:D
I will mail you my msn adress then :)

veritas2007

22-11-2007, 09:17 AM

I liked this film as it encourages the viewer to do some research on the things that we have taken for granted. Whether there are inaccuracies or not, doesn't detract from the individuals right and obligation to find out the truth for his/herself.

Just a couple of things I noted in the previous posts:

Horizon/Sunset & Hours references: I've watched the film and read the transcript for Part 1 and I have found no mention of these words and their meanings. If someone can tell me at what time those statements appear in the film, I would be grateful.

Transcript: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

Anonymous film maker/money making film: " Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are."

This is on the Statement page of the website: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.htm

Whether or not it promotes atheism is a decision for the viewer. I'm not an atheist and I didn't feel compelled to change my beliefs based on the film.

If anyone is interested in downloading the film you can either use one of the many Google film grabber apps available for free download on the web of by searching for the torrents.

mariag

22-11-2007, 11:44 AM

Yes please! I can try to figure it out from there. Thanks a lot!:D

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331:o

veritas2007

22-11-2007, 02:24 PM

In fairness to the film and in answer to the questions posed on colbertnation's message boards below is the list of references used for the film. All are shown here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

I haven’t verified these references personally. I don’t know whether there have been previous versions of Zeitgeist which may have made some of the claims refuted on colbertnation's message boards.

"First off, the video is full of misinformation about Horus. He was baptized? Oh really! I would love to see a source for that!

Most of the supposed parallels are completely untrue!

Actually, Muslim apologists have been trying to do this for centuries--to say that Christianity is really just another form of paganism. But that's a lie.

Most of the information in this video seems to come from Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999), which is a sensationalist book which has zero academic credibility. If you want to learn about Horus you can read the ancient myths about him--
* Egyptian Mythology: Horus
* Encyclopedia Mythica: Horus
* The Eye Of Horus
* Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris

Let's go over just some of the data:

1. Horus was not born of a Virgin--that's a lie.

References:
Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 327-328
Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Page 40
Hall, Manly P.: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, 1928. Page 53-56 [Chapter 7: "Isis, the Virgin of the World"]
It is often argued that Isis was not a virgin because, in one version of the myth, she impregnated herself using the severed phallus of Osiris after he was killed and torn to pieces.... a 'miracle conecption'.
However, in another version of the myth, Frazer points out that Isis was impregnated with Horus:
"while she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the corpse of her dead husband"... a 'virgin conception'
[ Frazer, James: The Golden Bough, p422 ]

" The late form of the legend goes on to say that Isis fanned the body with her feathers, and produced air, and that at length she caused the inert members of Osiris to move, and drew from him his essence, wherefrom she produced her child Horus."
[ Budge, E.A. Wallia: Legends of the Gods, Chapter 5 ]

One must understand that 'virgin birth'& 'miracle brith' share a core mythological line and, in regards to mythological history, are one and the same generally speaking, so the birth of Horus in both accounts are applicable, not to mention the precident for such miracle conceptions is absolutly widespread traditionally.
As Carpenter points out:
"There is hardly a god whose worship as a benefactor of mankind attained popularity in any of the four continents... who was not reported to have been born from a virgin, or at least from a mother who owned the child not to any earthly father."
[ Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, Chaper 10, page 115 ]

As Massey points out:
"The mythical Messiah was always born of a Virgin Mother--a factor unknown in natural phenomena, and one that cannot be historical, one that can only be explained by means of the Mythos, and those conditions of primitive sociology which are mirrored in mythology and preserved in theology."
[ Massey, Gerald: Lectures, 1900 ]

As Joseph Mccabe, a Catholic Presist for a time points out:
"Virginity in goddessess is a relative matter...Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or sexless ) goddess, and in the later period of egyption religion she was again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict abstinence from her devotees."
[ McCabe, Joseph : The Story of Religious Controversy ]
Some other sources on this point:

Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, Chaper 10

Massey, Gerald: The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ

Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Parallels to other Religions, Chapter 7
Acharya S.: Suns of God Chapter 7

2. Horus was not baptized. That's a complete fabrication. "Anup the Baptizer"?--show me where you find that! That's a lie.

The scene of the baptism by John can be paralleled in the Ritual [Egyptian Book of the Dead] Chapter 97. Horus claims to be the master of all things, including the water of the Inundation. When he comes to be baptised, it is "said at the boat," called "the staff of Anup," " Look upon me, oh ye great and mighty Gods, who are foremost among the spirits of Annu; let me be exalted in your presence." The plea is very express." Lo, I come, that I may purify this soul of mine in the most high degree: let not that impediment which cometh from your mouth be issued against me, let me be purified in the lake propitiation and of equipoise;:let me plunge into the divine pool beneath the two divine sycamores of heaven and earth." After the baptism, he says, " Now let my Fold be fitted for me. I am the only one just and true upon the earth" (Ritual, Chapter 97, Renouf).
[ Massey, Gerald: Ancient Egypt -The Light of the World, Cosimo Classics,1907, p 617 ]

3. Horus never walked on water. He performed miracles, but raising the dead and walking on water were not among them. Nor did he cast out demons.

Note that in the transcript of the film, it makes no mention of Horus raising the dead or casting out demons

References:
Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 74-75
Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 626
Doane, Thomas.: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 256, 273
Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 623-661

4. Horus had disciples--but you can't show me a single reference to his having twelve. That's a lie.

Reference:
Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 600-607

5. Horus never taught in the temple at age 12. That's a lie. Read the accounts above--it's not there.

Note that in the transcript of the film, it makes no mention of Horus teaching in the temple

References - His teachings:
Massey, Gerald.: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree, . Pages 56-61
Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Pages 613-620

6. Where was ever said that was Horus crucified? That's a lie! He died in a later version of the story and was brought back to life--but Jesus' "resurrection" was more than a mere coming back to life. His body was transformed and changed. Anyways, it was only later added to the Horus legend.

References:

Crucifixtion:
Churchward, Albert: The Origin & Evolution of Religion, Page 135
Bonswick, James: Egyption Belief and Modern Thought, p. 157

Buried for 3 days:
Massey, Gerald.: Ancient Egypt The Light of The World ,Cosimo Classics, Page 628-629

Resurrection:
Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, p. 222- 223
Bonswick, James: Egyption Belief and Modern Thought, p. 150-155, 178

See also http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/horus8.jpg

That's just off the top of my head. That should give you some indication though about the reliability of this film. In short, its claims are lies that are told to sell books. But no scholar in the world would accept this stuff--only the ignorant. Anybody can get a book published or a video made and say whatever they want. That doesn't make it true.

Moreover, to think that Jesus didn't exist is absolutely, positively unfounded, unhistorical, and unrealistic.

Those who opposed Chrstianity from the very beginning never asserted that Jesus didn't exist--in fact, they made all kinds of slanderous claims against Jesus. But they never asserted he was a myth.

In fact, there's more evidence Jesus existed than virtually any one else in antiquity.

... and there isn't a single respectable scholar today--Christian or secular--who would make such a claim. Only those who haven't studied the issue seriously could say such a thing.

Hope that helps...

***UPDATE***

I just want to add a few things here to address some of the comments made below.

One person--who safely posted anonymously--makes the claim that my own sources refute me. They post the supposed parallels from the article [Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris], which first lists the "claims"... then refutes them. The "anonymous" poster didn't finish the article! This of course highlights the kind of ignorance of and/or misrespresentation of sources we're dealing with here.

Secondly, another person explained that the sources for the movie have been posted on-line. Follow the link and--what a shocker!--the primary source for the movie's claims about Jesus and Christianity is said to be Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy (1999). Again, this book is NOT an academic work and has ZERO credibility. According to this very site, one of S's sources is said to be John Allegro--a man whose work has frequently been condemned by scholars.

For example, when John Allegro attempted to publish a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, fourteen Oxford scholars wrote to the publisher and demanded it be pulled--it was an absolutely inaccurate translation! The book was pulled and the publisher even apologized! A critique was written by John Strugnell, which meticulously revealed in a line-by-line treatment the errors and which was longer than Allegro's book itself! [See "Notes en marge du volume V des 'Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordon'" in Revue de Qumran 7 (1963): 163-76. For more on the debacle see, James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead See Scrolls (San Francisco: HaperCollins, 2002), 381-403.]

The fact is, no scholar takes Allegro's work seriously. You will only see his name mentioned in academic journals such as the Journal for the Historical Jesus (not a particularly conservative journal!) in articles listing the most outrageous examples of poor scholarship.

Of course, you won't find scholars quoting from S's book either.

Again, read the ancient sources themselves and see what they say about Horus--he was not baptized, crucified, etc. It may sell movies and it may appeal to those who already want to dismiss Christianity, but the Jesus-Horus comparison has really no academic value whatsoever."

I'm off to the British Museum next week so I'll see what I can pick up on Horus. I'll post up any new information I find.

bigus_dickus

22-11-2007, 03:59 PM

Whether or not it promotes atheism is a decision for the viewer. I'm not an atheist and I didn't feel compelled to change my beliefs based on the film.

if you were to change your beliefs over an amateur film, then your beliefs are not trustworthy.

you can spot the atheism agenda without even watching the film, by taking a look at his resources at least for the first part which is a bout christianity.

besides the bible, most of the rest authors are known as atheists and occultists.

umbrex

22-11-2007, 05:22 PM

veritas2007

22-11-2007, 05:28 PM

if you were to change your beliefs over an amateur film, then your beliefs are not trustworthy.

you can spot the atheism agenda without even watching the film, by taking a look at his resources at least for the first part which is a bout christianity.

besides the bible, most of the rest authors are known as atheists and occultists.

I'm not trying to upset any Christians here, but research of the Bible and its origins does open one's eyes to information not given in your normal Sunday School or RE lessons.

After seeing the film, I did not think "Oh, look.....that clearly proves there is no God". Not at all. What it did make me think was "Well I'll be jiggered. Maybe all religions can be traced back to one source."

You cite an atheist agenda. Have you considered though that Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism etc, etc may be following an agenda to keep us from knowing the real meanings of life? The real spiritual path? The real origins of mankind?

The more I discover, the more I believe that Religious doctrine is simply one of the control tools used by the elite (and a mighty effective one it is too!). I mean, aren't the best lies always half truth?

bigus_dickus

22-11-2007, 09:19 PM

I'm not trying to upset any Christians here, but research of the Bible and its origins does open one's eyes to information not given in your normal Sunday School or RE lessons.

that's because you are not supposed to receive it there. all the information is available for everyone who wants to search and learn from credible sources. those with the 'atheist' agenda though, are not credible. they are self proclaimed scholars, in other word amateurs. some don't even understand the basic methodology of effective research.

After seeing the film, I did not think "Oh, look.....that clearly proves there is no God". Not at all. What it did make me think was "Well I'll be jiggered. Maybe all religions can be traced back to one source."

You cite an atheist agenda. Have you considered though that Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism etc, etc may be following an agenda to keep us from knowing the real meanings of life? The real spiritual path? The real origins of mankind?

of course i have. but what does it really mean? you say that Christianity follows a certain agenda to keep us from the truth. who is this Christianity you are talking about?

how exactly does someone keep you from knowing the real meanings of life and the real spiritual path? has anyone ever forced you to believe anything and participate in any ritual, except perhaps when you were a little child?

The more I discover, the more I believe that Religious doctrine is simply one of the control tools used by the elite (and a mighty effective one it is too!). I mean, aren't the best lies always half truth?

it's not the doctrine itself, it is the way it gets interpreted. but no doctrine is any real teaching. you don't learn to be a mechanic by reading a book, nor you fix any machine. the "elite" are political leaders, all leaders claim to have God on their side and they have their churches on their side, because they share interests.

on the other hand, tell me in what way has religious doctrine controlled you?

veritas2007

22-11-2007, 10:21 PM

that's because you are not supposed to receive it there. all the information is available for everyone who wants to search and learn from credible sources. those with the 'atheist' agenda though, are not credible. they are self proclaimed scholars, in other word amateurs. some don't even understand the basic methodology of effective research.

You'll have to clarify some of the points you have made there. One man's 'amateur' is another man's 'expert'. How do you define a credible source? I can give you some quotes which would probably be termed credible:

In terms of the authenticity of the New Testament:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

On the origins of the New Testament:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

With regards to the genuineness of the content of the New Testament:
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645)

Hardly subscribers of the 'atheist agenda'.

of course i have. but what does it really mean? you say that Christianity follows a certain agenda to keep us from the truth. who is this Christianity you are talking about?

I didn't say Christianity followed a certain agenda, I asked if you had considered it viable that they may be following an agenda to keep us from knowing the real meanings of life? The real spiritual path? The real origins of mankind? The Christianity I was referring to the "Religion derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ".

how exactly does someone keep you from knowing the real meanings of life and the real spiritual path? has anyone ever forced you to believe anything and participate in any ritual, except perhaps when you were a little child?

I am fortunate that both my parents agreed to raise myself and my sister to make our own decisions about spirituality and religion. It sounds a little hippy but it really wasn't. I do have relatives on my Mother's side who are Christadelphians and they are discouraged from scientific writings or opinions (for example) on the prehistoric era....dinosaurs and the like.

If I were to suggest Zeitgeist to them, I would likely be carted down to their local church for a round of baptisms and an exorcism.

it's not the doctrine itself, it is the way it gets interpreted. but no doctrine is any real teaching. you don't learn to be a mechanic by reading a book, nor you fix any machine. the "elite" are political leaders, all leaders claim to have God on their side and they have their churches on their side, because they share interests.

on the other hand, tell me in what way has religious doctrine controlled you?

Interesting analogy. I joined the army when I left school and attended military college for a two year apprenticeship as a mechanic. I learned it from several books :) (that was a little unfair of me).

I'm not entirely sure I know what you are getting at but the history books show us that the link between heads of state (kings, queens), political leaders and their ilk have had the closest of ties with dominant religions. There are many, many instances for example of the Vatican's help, assistance, influence with political matters spanning many countries and many years.

As to the question on what way has religious doctrine controlled me, one could argue that my life and the lives of many of my fellow countryman have been controlled throughout history as I have described above.

As I stated several posts before; Zeitgeist delivers a message. A message for everyone to wake up from this elitist induced coma and seek the truth. Don't accept what we've been told as truth just because self appointed 'leaders' tell us it is so.

I share an opinion with many people; that religion is a form of slavery. The worst kind. I believe that anyone who fails to recognise or deliberately ignore the presence in the universe of a divine entity needs their bumps read and they do so at their own peril; What goes around, comes around.

Zeitgeist doesn't denounce the existence of a divine entity, it simply shows another example of how we are kept from the truth.

bigus_dickus

23-11-2007, 03:44 PM

You'll have to clarify some of the points you have made there. One man's 'amateur' is another man's 'expert'. How do you define a credible source? I can give you some quotes which would probably be termed credible:

what i mean by credible sources, is people who have studied ancient history, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy and have a university degree in religious studies at least.

for example, the movie uses quotes from Jordan Maxwell. this guy has no clue about the Greek language to begin with. and his knowledge about all the languages of the texts he is studying and supposedly analyzing, is very limited. in a lot of cases he just makes up stuff to go along with his theory.

the greatest deal in bible misinterpretation, comes from false understanding of the language, mistranslations and modifications that were made to the texts. i can give you many examples for this.

here is a little example that i have thought.

lets consider the event in which a rich man asks Jesus what to do if he is to attain salvation.
so this man goes to Jesus and ask him. lets suppose that what Jesus really says is this: "you will save your soul, the moment you let go of your possessions and attachments".

the above phrase may mean a lot to modern humans, but it didn't mean much to jews of that time. so how the saying gets written down is this: "in order to save your soul, you need to sell all your wealth to the poor and those who need it and follow me".

we can read behind the lines, only when we put the story and text into its proper context. there are so many sayings and passages from ancient texts that have got greatly misunderstood, by taking them out of context and judging with a 20th century rationality. that's mainly what these self proclaimed scholars do, intentionally or not, which leads them to false judgment and conclusions.

I didn't say Christianity followed a certain agenda, I asked if you had considered it viable that they may be following an agenda to keep us from knowing the real meanings of life? The real spiritual path? The real origins of mankind? The Christianity I was referring to the "Religion derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ".

the "religion derived from the teachings of Jesus Christ", is not a giant monolith like these people want you to believe. it is consisted of a vast variety of divisions, sects, belief systems. there have been agendas, not to keep us from the real path, but to promote several interests and beliefs since day 1.

for example, gnosticism is a big part of Christianity, that today it is not considered Christianity but heresy. so it's interesting to see how orthodoxy and heresy came to be. i have analyzed the story in brief in some other posts, however if you are interested i can elaborate.

the crucial point is how orthodoxy came to be what it is, because from that point on, every other belief was considered as "heresy" (which means choice, but this word from this point began to mean "lies") and all their books got destroyed and at best hidden. it's interesting that all these "heretic" beliefs, have their own scriptures and gospels, from credible sources (here we mean ancient texts allegedly written by the apostles themselves or their companions) and many of them are pseudonymous, forged, or even anonymous. suffice to say that a lot of texts that finally got to be included in the NT canon are also anonymous or pseudonymous, but they were thought to be authentic back then when they didn't have the technology and knowledge to verify them.

so you see, that's kind of a big story to be summarized to a phrase. think about a pagan world with a vast variety of Gods and philosophies being converted to christianity, not just any christianity, but Paul's version of Christianity which claims that Jesus is God and he is coming back to judge the world and yada yada. everyone had their own beliefs about Jesus and about God and everyone were making scriptures according to their new beliefs, using well known names of this time, such as the names of the apostles.

the variety of beliefs was even bigger than it is today. everything that people believe today about God and Jesus, has literally existed from 2,000 years ago. there were debates, fights, letters from one church to another on what to believe and how to worship.

so, if there is a real agenda behind this story, where is it? apparently, what Christianity evolved to be, is what the Roman church chose. Rome chose a particular doctrine (after all these debates and heresiology) that suited Rome's political system. after Roman emperor constantine converted, people were converting in great numbers to the particular doctrine. Rome had financial and political power and great influence to many other churches, they actually gave instructions and orders and became an authority. from 367a.d. we have the first collection of books that are to be included in the canon that became the new testament and this is the same collection that we have today. these books, were suggested by bishop Athanasios, a very powerful bishop with firm beliefs in the divinity of Christ and the bodily resurrection of every living and dead soul on earth when the end times come. so from this point, christians began to consider these books as canonical (which means correct) and discard the rest of them. what's interesting, is that in these books, there are references to other books that don't survive, but there are also references to gnostic books that were discovered much later in the Nag Hammadi Library, which proves that the scrolls of NHL were not later documents but existed together with most of the texts of the NT that we now have.

I am fortunate that both my parents agreed to raise myself and my sister to make our own decisions about spirituality and religion. It sounds a little hippy but it really wasn't. I do have relatives on my Mother's side who are Christadelphians and they are discouraged from scientific writings or opinions (for example) on the prehistoric era....dinosaurs and the like.

If I were to suggest Zeitgeist to them, I would likely be carted down to their local church for a round of baptisms and an exorcism.

i have had hard debates with Christians on these matters. most people don't research and don't care about it. they choose to believe something because others say so and they have the nerve to deny a lot of facts and ignore the history about it, but that's merely a choice. THEIR choice, nobody forced them to believe anything, they just do and believe they are right.

so, it's the same with everything else. they don't question, they accept authority, they make assumptions and they propagate them. much like what the Zeitgeist film does, but from the opposite perspective.

so, as you said so already, it's what the parents do when they believe they are right. it's what my parents did and what you will do when you become a parent. can you blame them though.. we prefer to blame the "elite", the beliefs, invisible aliens and demons than the people themselves, or ourselves for that matter. there is no one to blame.

Interesting analogy. I joined the army when I left school and attended military college for a two year apprenticeship as a mechanic. I learned it from several books :) (that was a little unfair of me).

you learned the theory of it from several books, but books don't give you the skills to do it or master the art.

I'm not entirely sure I know what you are getting at but the history books show us that the link between heads of state (kings, queens), political leaders and their ilk have had the closest of ties with dominant religions.

don't forget that in the pagan world, the leaders were Gods. there were hundreds of Gods all over the world for literally everything included in human reality. there were supernatural Gods, demi-Gods (part human part God) and of course there were the human Gods! the kings were these Gods.

these people wanted to continue this tradition (being considered as Gods and highly respected as such, so that they would have absolute power), so what would they do when paganism got out of the picture? make strong church authorities (bishops, popes, etc) and finance them! then claim that you hold the only truth and destroy everything else that opposes it. and thus, religion became politics again.

but what does Jesus and his teachings have to do with this? nothing at all.. in fact, Jesus was opposing the "elite" of his time, preaching about apocalypse and salvation by the return of the "son of man" (not him!) to the world.

As to the question on what way has religious doctrine controlled me, one could argue that my life and the lives of many of my fellow countryman have been controlled throughout history as I have described above.

As I stated several posts before; Zeitgeist delivers a message. A message for everyone to wake up from this elitist induced coma and seek the truth. Don't accept what we've been told as truth just because self appointed 'leaders' tell us it is so.

I share an opinion with many people; that religion is a form of slavery. The worst kind. I believe that anyone who fails to recognise or deliberately ignore the presence in the universe of a divine entity needs their bumps read and they do so at their own peril; What goes around, comes around.

Zeitgeist doesn't denounce the existence of a divine entity, it simply shows another example of how we are kept from the truth.

what i want to point out, is that this movie and the authors who became its references, have a profound agenda of treating Christianity as a whole entity and the Christian people as all together and the same with the same beliefs. this is wrong of course.. what the movie deals with is Catholicism for the most part. it completely ignores all other different beliefs and philosophies and scrutinizes the bible and only the bible as we know it.

these books of the bible have been copied and translated thousands of times. it must be the most copied and translated and transliterated book of all time. therefore there is not one bible today that we can think of as original. the closest we can get, is the Greek version which derives from the original Greek texts that have been saved.

Zeitgeist and these authors, don't care about how things evolved to this day, what they care about is to "prove" (with false assumptions for the most part) that the orthodox bible is wrong and in most cases they suggest their own interpretation of the truth, which is according to their agenda whatever that is.

veritas2007

23-11-2007, 09:10 PM

Thanks for taking the time to reply B_D.

Your point on qualifications to validate the opinions of the authors only means that they have an advanced knowledge of that particular syllabus. What if the syllabus is incorrect though? What would their qualifications mean then? A Masters in twaddle means very little. I'm throwing this one out there, just think about that for a sec.

Now, I'm not here to defend Jordan Maxwell, although I do enjoy watching his videos, bur based on the assumption that no qualifications = no knowledge is supremely unfair to him. The guy has been researching the occult since the 50's and you have to give him credit for that. I dismiss the comment "in a lot of cases he just makes up stuff to go along with his theory.". It would be more accurate to say that, based on his own research he has formed an hypothesis. Finally on Mr Maxwell: I don't know whether he has a clue about the Greek language, do you?

I don't quite understand your comment about the film singling out the Catholic belief and disregarding the others. I've seen Zeitgeist a number of times and to me, it always came across as focusing on Jesus Christ. I'd say that covers all of Christendom. Any religion which features Jesus Christ.

Your comments on the dinosaur issue are interesting. I can only comment from my own personal experience but those whom I have spoken to, who's religious teachings do not factor in the prehistoric era, deny their existence not from personal choice, but from indoctrination. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

I'd like to ask a question to any religious subscribers:

Do you think they have churches in heaven? I'm not talking about temples or shrines, I mean for instance a Methodist Church and then two streets over, a Jehova's Witness church? Are there separate ones or are there only churches of your faith?

I have an informed opinion on that one but I'd be interested to know what others think.

Finally; I could take your last comment and turn it around with very little effort to make my point:

"in most cases they suggest their own interpretation of the truth, which is according to their agenda whatever that is."

By your own admission earlier in your post, and made by many Bible subscribers I've debated with, this is exactly what Christendom does with the Bible. The agenda is set by the church and the ones appointed 'religious leaders'.

In summation, I'd like to quote one of the greatest films of all time:

"If you wanna play blind man, then go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open"

Pulp Fiction

I mean no disrespect to anyone, If I have offended, forgive me.

fremmenwarrior

25-11-2007, 11:52 AM

Hi, is there an easy way for less computer-literate peeps like myself to download the complete Zeitgeist video perhaps as a .mpeg or .avi file please and save to my pc's hard drive? Thanks.

veritas2007

25-11-2007, 12:04 PM

Hi, is there an easy way for less computer-literate peeps like myself to download the complete Zeitgeist video perhaps as a .mpeg or .avi file please and save to my pc's hard drive? Thanks.

I think I downloaded it as a Torrent. If you're not sure how that works, drop me a PM.

:)

hagbard_celine

26-11-2007, 10:37 AM

I've just seen Zeitgeist. I've been meaning to watch it for ages and now i have! Its bloody good!:cool:

bigus_dickus

26-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Your point on qualifications to validate the opinions of the authors only means that they have an advanced knowledge of that particular syllabus. What if the syllabus is incorrect though? What would their qualifications mean then? A Masters in twaddle means very little. I'm throwing this one out there, just think about that for a sec.

the only way to study origins of anything, is to study history and all of the traditions and texts that have been saved, the socio-political structure of the world and how these things evolved over the centuries. for example, someone who is to study Greek philosophy, is required to understand the Greek language. there's no way around.

Now, I'm not here to defend Jordan Maxwell, although I do enjoy watching his videos, bur based on the assumption that no qualifications = no knowledge is supremely unfair to him. The guy has been researching the occult since the 50's and you have to give him credit for that. I dismiss the comment "in a lot of cases he just makes up stuff to go along with his theory.". It would be more accurate to say that, based on his own research he has formed an hypothesis. Finally on Mr Maxwell: I don't know whether he has a clue about the Greek language, do you?

Jordan has said in his videos that he was raised in a strict Christian family and had been indoctrinated with the Christian dogma as a little child. that was until the age of 18, where as many other kids he rebelled against his parents, left his home and started studying the occult as a reaction to his apparent oppression by his parents. his main focus has been to discredit Christianity since then by promoting astrology, the "true religion" as he says and the occult and not to study Christianity from a theological or historical viewpoint.

your comment "based on his own research he has formed an hypothesis", really means that he just makes stuff up. i can form hundreds of hypotheses myself and back them up "based on my own research". if the reader is ignorant, he is going to believe my hypothesis no matter how outrageous it can be.

Finally on Mr Maxwell: I don't know whether he has a clue about the Greek language, do you?

yes i do. i have good knowledge of the Greek language, because it is my first language, therefore i can spot his mistakes immediately when they have to do with interpretation of language.

but it is not only language that Maxwell and the rest misinterpret, but the texts themselves. Maxwell suggests his own theological interpretation of the religious texts, not to discredit them, but to validate them as if they refer to his own theological beliefs. much like what people have been doing for hundreds of years changing religious texts to alter their original meaning and liken them to their own beliefs.

I don't quite understand your comment about the film singling out the Catholic belief and disregarding the others. I've seen Zeitgeist a number of times and to me, it always came across as focusing on Jesus Christ. I'd say that covers all of Christendom. Any religion which features Jesus Christ.

they ignore a large portion of the Christian history as i wrote above. they ignore the process that took centuries of debates and fighting that resulted to the formation of the orthodox dogma and the classification of heresies.

what they suggest, is that orthodoxy was decided by a small "elite" in a council, in a conspiracy way. they suggest that Christianity is paganism that got turned into monotheism by a few people with the intention to control the masses. that could not be further from the truth.

is there any reference at all in gnosticism? how about an analysis of the many different heresies? do you know that the formation of orthodoxy was done by antithesis to those beliefs which were a large part of Christianity and got classified as heresy? creeds that have been decided in the Nicea council and in other councils, have had this same purpose. to establish a common belief among christians that would unite them, state their beliefs as accurately as possible and get rid of the beliefs that were considered as heretic.

here's a small example. the ebionites believe that Jesus is a Jew rabbi, who comes and teaches about the Torah. the Marcionites believe that Jesus is spirit which came to appear as human and is not human after all. the Gnostics believe that Jesus is the embodiment of Aeon Christos, who among other Gods, incarnated to earth to teach people. so the orthodox, take all of these beliefs and crearly state what the correct should be: Jesus is both man and God. now who can argue with such an incomprehensible notion..

Your comments on the dinosaur issue are interesting. I can only comment from my own personal experience but those whom I have spoken to, who's religious teachings do not factor in the prehistoric era, deny their existence not from personal choice, but from indoctrination. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

are you saying that personal choice becomes void when there is indoctrination? i don't believe that, because everyone is subject to indoctrination, not only in religious matters, but in about everything. of course the social environment plays a big role starting with the parents as mentioned before, but don't underestimate the power of personal choice. it is always present, exercised or hidden.

otherwise, Maxwell would stick to his indoctrination and he would be a devoted Christian right now and i would have never questioned and researched anything for myself.

Do you think they have churches in heaven? I'm not talking about temples or shrines, I mean for instance a Methodist Church and then two streets over, a Jehova's Witness church? Are there separate ones or are there only churches of your faith?

I have an informed opinion on that one but I'd be interested to know what others think.

seriously, i don't know. i have never been in a country called heaven.

By your own admission earlier in your post, and made by many Bible subscribers I've debated with, this is exactly what Christendom does with the Bible. The agenda is set by the church and the ones appointed 'religious leaders'.

Christendom does nothing with the bible. Christians interpret the bible in many ways and have been doing so for centuries. that's why they have been trying to find and establish not only the correct and authoritative books, but also the correct and authoritative interpretation of these books. the matters that we are now discussing, have been in discussion since the beginning.

there is no way to tell what the real Jesus said and did accurately, or even what was written in the original prototypes. the best we have is fragments of copies of copies of copies and more copies. these copies, in an era where no copy machine existed, were all done word for word by hand. in many cases, words were left out, whole lines were dropped, whole passages were added (according to the personal beliefs of each scribe), explanations and modifications were embedded and every natural mistake and intentional changing that you can think of has been done. whose scriptures are we then reading? are we to dismiss the whole bible because of this inevitable thing that happened? are we to suggest our own interpretations? are we to follow what the churches suggest? or are we to investigate its history and find the truth behind it?

veritas2007

26-11-2007, 03:04 PM

f3zza

26-11-2007, 03:27 PM

I watched Zeitgeist several months ago and must say it is one of the best put together docu's on these subjects I have watched.

It just spells it out in plain and simple English. It doesn't go so deep as to confuse and I watched it with 3 "don't do conspiracy" people. All of them had to question there out looks after watching Zeitgeist.

Shame it isn't attracting mainstream attention though.

bigus_dickus

26-11-2007, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the diatribe but let's get back to the heart of the matter. You claim Zeitgeist follows an "atheist agenda", I maintain it doesn't. Clearly you are from a religious background and have been offended by the first part of Zeitgeist and I understand that, of course I do. I would imagine most Christians would find the film blasphemous.

i don't get offended and i am not defending Christianity or my personal beliefs. i am saying it as it is. and i don't just claim, i made a diatribe as you said.

how come it now has to do with me and what my personal beliefs are? i haven's mentioned them at all.

I do not come from a religious background and so from my perspective, I do not find the first part of Zeitgeist offensive. Without the weight of 2,000 years of Christian indoctrination around my neck, I can see the film for what it is - information. In the same way that many Christians found The Life of Brian offensive, I simply saw it for what it was - funny.

what do you think that i think of that movie?

I'm sure an educated person such as you can reel off tons of information to support your viewpoint on Christianity. What I am saying, as indeed Zeitgeist is saying, what if Christianity is based on a falsehood? What if its all lies? What if its plain wrong?

which one of the Christianities? the lost ones? the most popular ones? the one that these authors believe or the one that they come from?

some dudes believe that Jesus was a mushroom, others believe that he has gay. it is all based on assumptions of what people think that scriptures really mean.

If you or any Christians don't want to consider this, fine. Keep on walking. You've got to respect people and allow them to make up their own minds on this.

no i will not allow, i will kill you all sons of bitches. i mean, come on, we are only discussing, of course you are allowed to believe whatever you want, or else there would be no discussion at all.

veritas2007

26-11-2007, 03:50 PM

We'll I'm officially confused.

Some of your answers are a little ambiguous which makes it difficult to know where you are coming from. Why don't we drop the cryptic Q and A and get back to the origins of the debate?

As people have testified already, Zeitgeist is an eye opener and challenges the 'official stories' and motivations of those who are regarded as 'being in charge'. If you think that its part of an atheist agenda, best of luck to you. I disagree.

rebel ins

26-11-2007, 04:28 PM

Jesus - Horus comparison comes from Gerald Massey, official science doesn't acknowledge him

the source

http://www.hermetics.org/doc/Massey_Gerald_-_Ancient_Egypt_The_Light_of_the_World_Vol_2.doc

but don't concern whether this is disinfo or not, love is that matters

bigus_dickus

27-11-2007, 01:02 PM

Some of your answers are a little ambiguous which makes it difficult to know where you are coming from. Why don't we drop the cryptic Q and A and get back to the origins of the debate?

As people have testified already, Zeitgeist is an eye opener and challenges the 'official stories' and motivations of those who are regarded as 'being in charge'. If you think that its part of an atheist agenda, best of luck to you. I disagree.

what answers are ambiguous? i think that what i wrote is pretty clear and easy for everyone to understand. and i didn't even get into a theological approach.

all propagandistic works are designed to be "eye openers" and to challenge the official stories. i did not say that the producer of the film has a clear atheist agenda or is a propagandist, but his sources that i have investigated are. maybe like many others, even users of the forum, he repeats what he heard or read from people who call themselves scholars, like Maxwell, Tsarion, Allegro, Bushby, Murdock, Dawkins and the whole bunch.

greenleaf

27-11-2007, 04:31 PM

seems to me that the Bible Bashers are getting worried that they are coming to the realisation their whole life has been one big lie and made from a myth...get over it... looking for answers isn't going to make your life better..only create more questions.

veritas2007

27-11-2007, 05:10 PM

what answers are ambiguous? i think that what i wrote is pretty clear and easy for everyone to understand. and i didn't even get into a theological approach.

all propagandistic works are designed to be "eye openers" and to challenge the official stories. i did not say that the producer of the film has a clear atheist agenda or is a propagandist, but his sources that i have investigated are. maybe like many others, even users of the forum, he repeats what he heard or read from people who call themselves scholars, like Maxwell, Tsarion, Allegro, Bushby, Murdock, Dawkins and the whole bunch.

Ok. What should we believe then? What's the "official story"?

bigus_dickus

28-11-2007, 03:07 PM

Ok. What should we believe then? What's the "official story"?

about what?

veritas2007

28-11-2007, 06:32 PM

bigus_dickus

29-11-2007, 04:26 PM

Remember?

oh i get it. you should believe the truth, what else?

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 04:48 PM

oh i get it. you should believe the truth, what else?

Simple question from me, not loaded.

You claimed that "all propagandistic works are designed to be "eye openers" and to challenge the official stories"

So tell me, what the official stories are? In a straight answer please, not by asking another question, no cryptic text and not another ambiguous answer.

If you want to debate this, let's do it. If you'd rather not, then fine. I'm not offended and I claim no possible victory (that is to say that there is no victory to be had, just good, clean theological debate). But please, don't waste my time.

bigus_dickus

29-11-2007, 06:52 PM

So tell me, what the official stories are? In a straight answer please, not by asking another question, no cryptic text and not another ambiguous answer.

i already did tell you in my lengthy posts.

the official interpretations of the ancient texts is made to match your political and social system, in order to control the way you think about stuff.

i don't like repeating myself, if you have something specific to ask, go ahead. we can discuss anything you want.

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 08:10 PM

i already did tell you in my lengthy posts.

the official interpretations of the ancient texts is made to match your political and social system, in order to control the way you think about stuff.

i don't like repeating myself, if you have something specific to ask, go ahead. we can discuss anything you want.

So, we agree that Christian doctrine is a manufactured to control society based on interpretation. Have you considered that the ancient texts were manufactured with this aim in mind?

Zeitgeist shows the viewer that the texts were assembled to achieve the control. The suggestion that its atheist propaganda is your own opinion and one that I do not agree with. I stated that several pages back which prompted your glib remark about my beliefs being untrustworthy if I'd changed my mind based on an "amateur film". How very gracious of you.

Watch the film and tell me what the atheist propaganda is. The big mistake you're making is confusing the Bible with God. They are not the same.

Your argument earlier regarding myths was weak and was based on semantics. The question you should ask yourself is "Who named them myths?" and "What was their motivation?". When you consider this, you'll see how it is not possible to separate the Church and the Bible. Its a symbiotic relationship.

You are quick to debase Maxwell and Tsarion but I have heard neither make the following claims:

1. God does not exist
2. The Bible is completely false

Both reference the Bible in their works. To lay claim that they are charlatans because they don't follow the accepted belief system is narrow minded. Now Richard Dawkins is another matter but he's a self confessed atheist and you can't place them all in the same bracket. That is just a product of ignorance.

Neither can you say that Zeitgeist is misinformation. How can fact be incorrect? The real meat of the problem is the challenge of faith for the Bible subscribers. Those who speak out against it are obviously struggling with their faith. Those that are rock solid wouldn't waste their time with it. There is a possible third reason at the backlash, and that's the Church's obligation to convert all us "lost souls". How convenient for the Bible to ask it's believers to do that?

The fact is that people have the right to make up their own minds. People are intelligent and not the sheep the Bible and the Church like to refer to them as. There is a Revelation coming but not the archaic fire and brimstone tripe the masses swallow. The Revelation is the awakening of the people. The realisation of the oppression which has been forced upon them.

bigus_dickus

29-11-2007, 08:31 PM

So, we agree that Christian doctrine is a manufactured to control society based on interpretation. Have you considered that the ancient texts were manufactured with this aim in mind?

no we don't. no i haven't.

Zeitgeist shows the viewer that the texts were assembled to achieve the control. The suggestion that its atheist propaganda is your own opinion and one that I do not agree with.

fine.

Watch the film and tell me what the atheist propaganda is. The big mistake you're making is confusing the Bible with God. They are not the same.

i have no idea why you just said that.

Your argument earlier regarding myths was weak and was based on semantics. The question you should ask yourself is "Who named them myths?" and "What was their motivation?". When you consider this, you'll see how it is not possible to separate the Church and the Bible. Its a symbiotic relationship.

who named then myths? what are we talking about? what do you mean "separate the church and the bible"?

You are quick to debase Maxwell and Tsarion but I have heard neither make the following claims:

1. God does not exist
2. The Bible is completely false

Both reference the Bible in their works. To lay claim that they are charlatans because they don't follow the accepted belief system is narrow minded.

did i say that they are charlatans because they don't follow the accepted belief system? if i did, that would be narrow mindedness of me. but i didn't.

Now Richard Dawkins is another matter but he's a self confessed atheist and you can't place them all in the same bracket. That is just a product of ignorance.

he has written a book called "the God delusion". he is in a different class i admit. i may also be ignorant.

Neither can you say that Zeitgeist is misinformation. How can fact be incorrect?

you lost me here.

The real meat of the problem is the challenge of faith for the Bible subscribers. Those who speak out against it are obviously struggling with their faith. Those that are rock solid wouldn't waste their time with it. There is a possible third reason at the backlash, and that's the Church's obligation to convert all us "lost souls". How convenient for the Bible to ask it's believers to do that?

alright. to be honest i don't know, maybe you should talk about it with the bible subscribers themselves.

The fact is that people have the right to make up their own minds. People are intelligent and not the sheep the Bible and the Church like to refer to them as. There is a Revelation coming but not the archaic fire and brimstone tripe the masses swallow. The Revelation is the awakening of the people. The realisation of the oppression which has been forced upon them.

sheep are intelligent too. the reference to sheep has nothing to do with intelligence, but with the herd behavior that humans have resembling them.

all about "revelation coming" is reference to christian texts that you say you don't believe. that's if you haven't invented your own personal "revelation".

veritas2007

29-11-2007, 09:45 PM

I lost a lot of my original responses when I hit the back button by mistake during a preview! Here's the abridged version

no we don't. no i haven't.

You said:
the official interpretations of the ancient texts is made to match your political and social system, in order to control the way you think about stuff.

I said:
Christian doctrine is a manufactured to control society based on interpretation

Its the same thing, my sentence was more succinct.

who named then myths? what are we talking about? what do you mean "separate the church and the bible"?

Simply that the basis of the Church is the Bible.

did i say that they are charlatans because they don't follow the accepted belief system? if i did, that would be narrow mindedness of me. but i didn't.

My mistake. I think I have confused this thread with another I have read today and that comment is for the other thread. My sincere apologies for confusing you with the other poster B_D.

he has written a book called "the God delusion". he is in a different class i admit. i may also be ignorant.

As above comment. No inference of ignorance is directed toward you.

you lost me here.

It was a rhetorical question.

all about "revelation coming" is reference to christian texts that you say you don't believe. that's if you haven't invented your own personal "revelation".

The reference to Revelations was deliberate.

bigus_dickus

05-12-2007, 12:51 PM

I lost a lot of my original responses when I hit the back button by mistake during a preview! Here's the abridged version

i made a long reply citing in a few words the history of the early christian church, the proto orthodox, the orthodox dogma, the things that people had to deal with, decisions they had to make, philosophical problems they had to address, changes in the texts all these brought and some more info.. but then i decided to post a short reply and leave it at that. i figured that such a discussion belongs to another thread and not in this one.

You said:
the official interpretations of the ancient texts is made to match your political and social system, in order to control the way you think about stuff.

I said:
Christian doctrine is a manufactured to control society based on interpretation

Its the same thing, my sentence was more succinct.

it's a very general statement and mine isn't supposed to mean what yours means. that's because when you talk about "christian doctrine", you probably mean the orthodox doctrine, that which orthodox and catholics subscribe to.

the idea is that the orthodox doctrine is a compromise doctrine as i stated before (and analyzed, but won't post it yet) and a paradoxical one at the same time. the reasons for this are various and important, that would take a big article to explain. in general, what the orthodox doctrine is all about, is philosophical problems which brought belief conflicts among christians who at that time were mostly converted pagans.

some indicative problems were:
- the nature of Jesus. people believe a lot and various stuff about Jesus (as it is the case today), so these issues need to be addressed, clarified and solutions need to be provided
- the nature of God. people have lots and various beliefs about God as well and about the relationship of Jesus with God, so more stuff needs to be addressed and solutions need to be provided. in what way was Jesus God's son? is Jesus God too, or is he subordinate to the father? all this controversy gets met with another paradoxical claim
- the way of worship and practices of liturgy. some people need (and it is their right) to retain their old customs and traditions, so many things need to be clear to them of how to do it properly in a christian way. that's why you have so many earlier pagan traditions and customs incorporated inside christianity's. pseudo-scholars often confuse this and suggest that christianity is essentially a pagan religion. this is plain nonsense and that's why these people are pseudo-scholars

..and others

but why do i have to say all that?

the reason is that some people want to convince you that christians are an occult group who co operate with mysterious forces in order to dominate humanity. that's total crap, the formation of the orthodox doctrine happened in a time span of centuries of disputes, controversy and fights among christians. there was no council where everything was decided upon, where the new book of doctrine was introduced and then bestowed in christianity worldwide. as i mentioned, debates about which books should be included in the canon as orthodox, lasted for many centuries and the first record we have about the 27 books that should be included, that finally made it to the canon, is from 367 AD. the first synod in which these 27 books were collected in a book as canonical was not earlier than the 15th century, while the official approval of those books as the canon, was in the 16th centure, roughly a century after (2-3 generations).

moreover, there were even more debates about whether the apocalypse of John should be included. many were suggesting that it should not be included at all, others suggested that the apocalypse of Peter should be included instead, but it ended up being included in the NT, for various reasons which i am not going to mention in the present post.

in general, it was the evolution of thought, speech and writing that brought all these ideas and all these changes. things have been inevitable to happen as we can see and in many cases, the leaders of the churches had the difficult task to explain the unexplainable. in certain cases they had no choice but to promote certain ideas.

there is another thing that i want to mention. in some cases, church leaders decided to give out books that they didn't think were very important and hide other books (non canonical) who they thought that they were more important, so that these books don't fall to the enemies' hands and get destroyed. so there you have them deliberately promoting a doctrine that they don't really subscribe to, but keep secret books to which only the wise and trustworthy of the church have access to. this resulted to the formation of secret brotherhoods who had the task of guarding these books and knowledge, which later evolved to be the templars, rosicrucians, freemasons, illuminati et cetera, each leading a different direction as separate cults following separate beliefs. these people were and still are considered as heretics by orthodoxy, meaning that they choose to follow an arbitrary form of christian religion and not the form taught originally by Paul and got reflected in the 'compromised' doctrine.

so, it's kind of a huge subject to get it summarized to a single phrase. if you are interested, i will elaborate, but it will take lengthy articles. also this is a subject for the "religion" section of the forum.

Simply that the basis of the Church is the Bible.

that's not true. there is no one real and authentic bible in our world today. there are more variations of the bible, than the words inside the bible!

so which bible are you talking about being a basis to some church?

i remind you that the bible was canonized about a thousand and a half years after the first proto orthodox churches were formed!

The reference to Revelations was deliberate.

there is much more to say about revelations and apocalypticism as a literature genre (in which people like Tsarion, Maxwell and Icke also belong to), but i will leave that alone for now.