Zeitgeist

[The Agriculturist]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197



It shows the truth about Jesus, so I figured it would cause debate. enjoy. I recommend for everyone.

 

[Ser Yorick]

Lol Zeitgeist is hilariously bad.

 

[Sovereign]

Lol Zeitgeist is hilariously bad.

This.

Zeitgeist is pretty much on the same level as "Loose Change" or that "documentary" on how Barack Obama is trying to kill us all.

 

[The Agriculturist]

the agenda might be similar, yes, but the initial part about Jesus simply being a version of a sun god is absolutely on point. and the astronomical symbolism.

 

[Ka've]

Damnit. You should have told me how long it was before i clicked on the link. I'm used to 2:30 minute Youtube videos.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

the agenda might be similar, yes, but the initial part about Jesus simply being a version of a sun god is absolutely on point. and the astronomical symbolism.

This. The jesus = other gods thing is the only decent and accurate part of the movie.

 

[JM76]

the agenda might be similar, yes, but the initial part about Jesus simply being a version of a sun god is absolutely on point. and the astronomical symbolism.

This. The jesus = other gods thing is the only decent and accurate part of the movie.

The astrological symbolism I can't be too sure about, but I've heard that much of the purported facts about Jesus in comparison to the sun gods of other cultures range from extremely exaggerated facts to blatant lies.

Besides that, it's just another conspiracy movie.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

I've heard that much of the purported facts about Jesus in comparison to the sun gods of other cultures range from extremely exaggerated facts to blatant lies.

And I bet it was a christian that you heard that from too :CHappy:

 

[JM76]

And I bet it was a christian that you heard that from too :CHappy:

Well yes. I didn't stop with their word, though. I used what little knowledge of mythology I have, and went from there. Some of the claims they make about, say, Horus, are obviously exaggerated. Looking at their bibliography for their information helped too.

But I don't see what difference that makes. :CAbove:

 

[Ser Yorick]

I'll let Jesse explain why this is folly.

 

[Sir Dakar]

I'll let Jesse explain why this is folly.

What? Why me?

 

[Ser Yorick]

What? Why me?

Because you are a man of science, whilst I am a man of logical faith (:CHappy:). It'll sound more convincing if you point out the gaping flaws to good old Agri.

 

[The Agriculturist]

Kurt, I would much prefer if you pointed out the 'gaping flaws' I have seemed to miss. Now, as i've said, the majority of this movie is doodoo, those being the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the federal reserve.

The part about jesus is actually true, and not that far from the truth. In fact, more so than just being a copy of all son deities before him, Jesus also posses more Hero qualities than most all mythological figures. He ranks third. Hercules ranked 17th.

St. paul didn't know about most of the things that people today 'know' about Jesus. To paul, most of the events, such as the virgin birth, the visit from the three kings, the miracles Jesus conducted, and just about every other important aspect of Jesus up until the crucifixion never happened. He doesn't mention them once. To paul, Jesus' life starts at his crucifixion, he is ressurected, and he rises to heaven. Paul doesn't even mention baptism.

All of the stories people have about Jesus today come from after St. paul's time, with the writing of the gospels. By this point, Jesus has transformed into a sun god. There are about 45 (at least, assuming Jesus died in 30 AD) years from when Jesus was supposed to have died, to when the earliest copies of the gospels have been found. For those 45 years, what we know about jesus comes from St. paul (the same one who missed the majority of jesus' life), who spent much of that time trying to spread early christianity (Judaism with Jesus as the messiah). Then, (with the earliest date of the first gospel, gosepl of Mark, being at the earliest late in the year 70 (as jesus mentions the destruction of the bible....something he wasn't alive to see, but would surely make him look sweet if he could have predicted)) Jesus suddenly gets the qualities of the sun god, and meets many qualities of pagan heroes (and christians adopt 'pagan' symbols, such as the cross) and suddenly membership of the church grows!

 

[Hanshin]

Because you are a man of science, whilst I am a man of logical faith (:CHappy:). It'll sound more convincing if you point out the gaping flaws to good old Agri.

The point of faith is that it must occur without logic, for if something is logically true what need do we have to have faith in it?


Bad movie.

 

[Ser Yorick]

I'll touch on the astronomical shit in a bit, but first let me address this next comment.

The point of faith is that it must occur without logic, for if something is logically true what need do we have to have faith in it?


Bad movie.

Faith occurs without logic? If faith occurs without logic or personal truth, then is it not just a fairytale, made up, and nonsensical? I thought you were a Christian, Hanshin? Or did I get you confused with someone else?

Do you know what it means to have your faith restored, to be substantiated?

If you believe God is real, then how is God, and your belief, your faith, not logical? To a Christian, it's completely logically to believe in God. It would be illogical to deny that belief. Illogical to not have faith.

 

[Hanshin]

I'll touch on the astronomical shit in a bit, but first let me address this next comment.

Faith occurs without logic? If faith occurs without logic or personal truth, then is it not just a fairytale, made up, and nonsensical? I thought you were a Christian, Hanshin? Or did I get you confused with someone else?

Do you know what it means to have your faith restored, to be substantiated?

If you believe God is real, then how is God, and your belief, your faith, not logical? To a Christian, it's completely logically to believe in God. It would be illogical to deny that belief. Illogical to not have faith.

It's entirely illogical to believe in God. It is logical to believe in intelligent design due to science's take on the matter, but I don't kid myself to think my faith is logical. A God who is everywhere all the time even when there was no time, in three parts yet still one God, very good at being paradoxal according to our comprehension, with a book that without faith is just a bunch of guys writing fake stories that are very hard to believe. Tell me that's logical. :CStern:

 

[Ser Yorick]

It's entirely illogical to believe in God. It is logical to believe in intelligent design due to science's take on the matter, but I don't kid myself to think my faith is logical. A God who is everywhere all the time even when there was no time, in three parts yet still one God, very good at being paradoxal according to our comprehension, with a book that without faith is just a bunch of guys writing fake stories that are very hard to believe. Tell me that's logical. :CStern:

I love how you say Intelligent Design is logical, then use generalizations for every other part of it. That's contradictory, and really rather silly.

I'm not kidding myself when I say my faith is logical. I have had experiences, and felt God in my heart. If you feel, or experience something, and truly believe it, then to you, it must be logical. If you come to a conclusion that makes sense, then it's logical.

Were I not to believe in God, then I could very easily say that belief in God is not logical. I could say it's foolish and stupid. But since I do, since I have experienced what I have experienced, and come to a logical conclusion that has been substantiated by further personal exploration, then I cannot say it is foolish, nor is it stupid.

As for a Supreme Being existing at all, it's actually quite logical to imagine that there is something out there that created, well, creation, that is above and beyond our comprehension. Some might not agree with me, and think that it's illogical, but it makes perfect sense to me. If you don't think this makes sense, then look at the fourth dimension, and the possibility of fourth-dimensional creatures.

As for the bible just being some book that without faith (faith is of course needed to bridge the gap, but so is logic) is a bunch of stories with no historical backup, you're just silly. There is tons of historical references and geographical accuracies to be had in the bible, but what we can't technically prove through scientific deduction, is whether or not Jesus did the things it says he does, and whether or not he is the son of God.

I'll leave off with a quote from Einstein. "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

 

[Ser Yorick]

Kurt, I would much prefer if you pointed out the 'gaping flaws' I have seemed to miss.

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

Krishna:

A VIRGIN BIRTH A virgin birth is never attributed to Krishna as his parents bore seven previous children.
Furthermore, the virgin birth was not a new concept invented by Christians. The book of Isaiah (written about
700 B.C.) spoke of a Messiah who would be born of a virgin. This prophecy was in circulation 700 years before
Jesus and at least 100 years before Krishna. (Isaiah 7:14) Critics claim Krishna was born to the virgin Maia but
according to Hindu texts, he was the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva: "You have
been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth." Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII

Sidhartha Gautama (Buddha):
(I did tons of personal research on Buddhism and Gautama himself before I ever became a Christian. It's one of the most fascinating religions out there, but also focuses on a very different path to "salvation". Buddhism is all about looking inward, whilst Christianity is about looking outward and "up".)

RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION After his death, Gautama's body was cremated. Source

"And they burned the remains of the Blessed One as they would do to the body of a king of kings." Source
Gautama was said to transcend all meditation levels upon his deathbed before reaching Nirvana. But according to
Buddhism, Nirvana is not a physical place, but a mental state. Like we mention with Krishna, the concept of
Buddha transcending into Nirvana differs greatly from the Christian Heaven.

Horus:

VIRGIN BIRTH There are two separate birth accounts in regards to Horus (neither depict a virgin birth):
Version 1: Hathor, the motherly personification of the milky way, is said to have conceived Horus but we are
told her husband, Ra, was an Egyptian sun god. Hathor (a sky goddess) was represented by the cow whose milk
brought forth the milky way. By the will of her husband Ra, she gave birth to Horus:

"I, Hathor of Thebes, mistress of the goddesses, to grant to him a coming forth into the presence [of the god]...
Hathor of Thebes, who was incarnate in the form of a cow and a woman." Source and Source

Version 2: When we examine Isis as Horus' mother, we are told Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris.
Isis practices magic to raise Osiris from the dead so she can bear a son that would avenge his death. Isis then
becomes pregnant from the sperm of her deceased husband. Again, no virgin birth occurs:

"[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his
essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus]." Source and Source

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a047.htm
I would also like to point out that a lot of the facts about Jesus' life were around before Jesus was even born. How does that make sense, you ask? Well, it was in a prophecy, if you don't remember, written about in the Old Testament.

 

[The Agriculturist]

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

Krishna:


Sidhartha Gautama (Buddha):
(I did tons of personal research on Buddhism and Gautama himself before I ever became a Christian. It's one of the most fascinating religions out there, but also focuses on a very different path to "salvation". Buddhism is all about looking inward, whilst Christianity is about looking outward and "up".)


Horus:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a047.htm
I would also like to point out that a lot of the facts about Jesus' life were around before Jesus was even born. How does that make sense, you ask? Well, it was in a prophecy, if you don't remember, written about in the Old Testament.

I allowed myself a look on the website you provided (also kurtsie when did I miss your transformation of being born again?), and after some giggles, I paused for water. Now I am writing this.

To me, the whole argument was done with when I read "Cautions of Discernment", for here, the author of this article write too much, when it was obvious what he was trying to say was "Basically, lose common sense, and this will make sense."

"I want you to keep the following things in mind the next time you are presented with the pagan copycat theory.
Ask yourself the following logic-based questions and you will see that most claims instantly crumble.

"TERMINOLOGY One thing to look out for when presented with copycat claims is the use of Judeo-Christian
terminology. There have been many religions throughout history whose members participated in ritual baths but
it was not baptism"-......This is extremely silly as this author is arguing semantics....In the same fashion that every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square, every baptism is a ritual bath, while not every ritual bath is a baptism. Baptism is a RITUAL in which the participant is BATHED by holy water. The manner in which the RITUAL BATH is carried forth may differ (standing in water and having more poured on you, having some water dropped on your head, etc.) but the idea behind them is relatively the same, and predates Jesus and christianity by centuries. Let's not even look far, so that 'coincidence' can be used as an argument, but rather let us look to the most immediate relative of christianity, which could even be considered the father religion; Judaism. judaism has it's own version of ritual bathing, done to purify the participant (originally priests) should they have come into contact with something unholy (i.e. a corpse) and are to enter the temple. Jesus was baptized by John the baptist (who must have been a Jew, as christianity wasn't even thought up yet). John, according to legends, baptized people so they could repent for their sins before the end of the world. Jesus is said to have taken the focus of baptizing away from this, and making the focus on PURIFICATION.


"Political and religious groups may have celebrated a communal meal but it was not a
Eucharist."- Again, our friend is talking semantics, which takes much from his argument. If we think rationally, we can conclude that christian practices had to come from what was available at the time (which our friend already stated in his own article). Again, the most obvious ideas behind the communal meal that is the eucharist come from Judaism, both from passover and from the friday night meal, Kiddush, which translated loosely from hebrew means 'the process of making something holy' as this meal would mark the difference between the week and the holy sabbath. Obviously, bread and wine are very important in the Kiddush, and both are PASSED AROUND (after being blessed) to everyone present. Now, the author of this article said that yes, there have been communal meals, but there was no Eucharist. so we must ask ourselves what makes the Eucharist special? turns out the only thing that sets apart the Eucharist from any communal meal is that the bread is actually believed to be the body of jesus, and the wine the blood of jesus. Is this original to christianity? Of course not! it was taken, almost directly, from a hellenistic (combination of greek, egyptian, and mesopotamian mythologies) myths. Apart from the main one (which I will shortly get too), there were numerous underground cults during hellenistic times, and many of these cults believed in a being born to a god father and mortal mother, who was resurrected after a heroic death (dying for the sins of all of man kind heroic enough for you?). Onwards, we have knowledge of the myth of Dionysus: "Dionysus was the god of the vine, and his feasts included wine that was the god himself, sacrificed for those at the feast. Dionysus was the son of Zeus, the king of the divine mountain. Zeus raised Dionysus from the dead and made him immortal....."To quote Euripides statement, he was the libation, 'The god who himself is offered in libation to the other gods.' In this passage the identification of the god with the wine is as absolute as the identification of Christ in Catholic thought with the consecrated wine of the mass...The modern scholar Barry Powell says that Christian notions of eating and drinking the "flesh" and "blood" of Jesus were influenced by the cult of Dionysus. He says that Dionysus was distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. Willoughby writes "The wine they drank was for them potent with divine power--it was the god himself, and the very quintessence of divine life was resident in the juice of the grape.. . The drinking of wine in the service of Dionysus was for them a religious sacrament. . . . The devotees of Dionysus had other realistic means of attaining to communion with their god. They had a sacrament of eating as well as a sacrament of drinking. This rite was the "feast of raw flesh." To be an initiate into the mysteries of Dionysus . . . (t)hey Quaff the goat's delicious blood. . . (t)he devotees tore asunder the slain beast and devoured the dripping flesh in order to assimilate the life of the god resident in it. Thus when the Bacchanals by the sacraments of eating and drinking entered into direct communion with their god, they became partakers of his immortality. In assimulating the raw flesh wherein the god was temporarily incarnate and in drinking the juice of the grape, they received into their bodies an undying substance." And again, we even have Mithras:a ritual enunciation by Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

"Followers may consider their god a savior of some sort but they are not called Messiah." Semantics once more, and it's starting to get annoying. jesus as a savior is modeled after other saviors as I have mentioned in another post. To say this doesn't hold true because jesus was a 'messiah' is absolute ignorance. Messiah comes from the Hebrew 'Mashiach' or one who is anointed. In simpler terms, one who was doused with oil. This was a common practice in Jewish times: The literal and proper translation of this word is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of anointing and consecrating someone or something with oil. (I Samuel 10:1-2) It is used throughout the Jewish Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king (I Kings 1:39), Jewish priests (Leviticus 4:3), prophets (Isaiah 61:1), the Jewish Temple and its utensils (Exodus 40:9-11), unleavened bread (Numbers 6:15), and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia, Isaiah 45:1).. Again, we need to look no further than Christianity's immediate predecessor (Judaism (who got the ritual from pagan religions in the area before it) to see the connections, and in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Jesus being called the Messiah was a way to get more jewish converts, much in the way that christmas is celebrated during the time of many pagan winter festivals in order to make the transition from pagan to christian easier and more appealing.

"Religions may speak of an afterlife but they do not consist of places known as Heaven and Hell." Well, heaven is described as a wonderful, peaceful, joyful, and holy place....sounds a lot like Aaru from egyptian lore, which represented the afterlife for the egpytians judged as just (their heart weighed less than a feather of the goddess ma'at), where they would exist with pleasure for all of eternity. If their hearts were heavier than the feather, they would suffer a second death at the hands of the terrible creature Ammit, who devoured them. Also, the journey to Aaru was described as dangerous, and upon arriving at the entrance, they would HAVE TO PASS THROUGH SEVERAL GATES (levels), that although the number of which is disputed, it is universally agreed they were guarded BY AN ARMY OF EVIL DEMONS WITH KNIVES. So, if we keep the final level of Aaru, where the god Osiris resides with those existing in eternal pleasure, and take all those gates and demons on the way and separate them, we just created heaven and hell, using ONLY egyptian mythology (there were many more influences, such as 'gehenom' what is regarded in hebrew as hell, but was really a pile of waste outside of the walls of a city, where dead animals, trash, feces, etc. was packed and BURNED (where do you think fire and brimstone (SMELLY sulfur) came from?)).


"Critics may use such terms to
make their connections seem stronger but this is a misuse of terminology as these words are usually of
Judeo-Christian origins."- Really now?


What is most funny to me about this is that i found all of these flaws in the FIRST PART of the introductory section. What fun awaits me in the article itself, I wonder.

 

[Ser Yorick]

I allowed myself a look on the website you provided (also kurtsie when did I miss your transformation of being born again?), and after some giggles, I paused for water. Now I am writing this.

To me, the whole argument was done with when I read "Cautions of Discernment", for here, the author of this article write too much, when it was obvious what he was trying to say was "Basically, lose common sense, and this will make sense."

What is most funny to me about this is that i found all of these flaws in the FIRST PART of the introductory section. What fun awaits me in the article itself, I wonder.

I knew you were going to nitpick. But, I shall use your same argument that you posted earlier. Just because some of the article is biased, retarded, and outlandish, that does not make all of its "facts" untrue.

BTW, look at the url I linked. You'll shit bricks once you notice the hilarity.