Interesting.......

[l3ills]

Ok I never post in here...but I recently stumbled upon this movie...its very well made and really makes you think about everything....

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

If you are going to watch this you MUST keep an open mind....if you are Christian be warned....

Part I- The Religious Myth
Part II- The 9/11 Myth
Part III- The men behind the curtain

I urge you all to watch this....its very well made.

[Al Davis]

Thanks for posting this, I was getting around to it eventually. Basically, this guy was your basic ignorant, blind American. I told him everything I learned concerning whats happening in this counrty with some rich bastards trying to establish a NWO. He shrugged it all off untill he watched this movie, and now he too is donning the tin foil hat.

I'm pretty sure the information in this movie is factual, and that I've convinced him^ then that gives me inspiration that I'm not living in a delusional state. That there is a group of powerful men influencing our lives, beyond an extent that we can comprehend. This country is filled with people who sit on their asses talking about what is wrong with this world, the problem being, they dont put forth effort to change anything. They think their indvidual lives dont hold any signifigance in the big picture, and when you got a majority of people with this attitude, that where you run into the problem.

This almost relates to a debate I heard recently, when people on the street witness a crime, like say a 70 yr old man being beaten and robbed, the larger the group of witnesses, the less chance a individual will take responsibility into his own hands to right a wrong, it too often will end up with a bunch of people standing glancing at each other. When someone feels as a part of a group that lessens their own independent responsibility...and this is what our nation has come too. Our current administration can do litteraly anything they want, knowing damn well the masses aint gonna give two shits about it. We'll sit around on our couches and "discuss" it, but thats about it.

We can all intiate change for the better if we put our minds too it...but it takes a effort that I'm afraid is non existant in our society.

These conspiracies may not be directly, or evidently affecting your lives, but they will soon.

Their may be alot of outlandish conspiracies out their that us creative minds conspire, but you'd be surprised to how much is true in the underground political cesspool that you can see if you really look into things.

I hope I'm not wildly wrong in this drunken rant, but the underlying message is very true. I wasnt very smart in school, or not the brighest person....but on this one, I feel I'm aware, and maybe that requires not having a complete education in this country, because just maybe they a teaching us a VERSION of reality and not "it" as it is.

Ahh, just watch the movie

as it covers three basic topics, how religion is used as a tool against societies, 9-11 inside job, and the hidden power thats been in control for awhile. They set up th banks, they plan the wars, they profit ect. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Windsors, their all going down!!!

Its just the attitude that gets to me, occasionally at a party this will be brought up, and someone will agree that the US govt. was behind the 9-11 attacks o whatever, and just crack open another beer and continue on with their every day life like no big deal. People, nows the time to reach our conclusions, but also act upon them.

[l3ills]

Thanks for posting this, I was getting around to it eventually. Basically, this kid was your basic ignorant, blind American. I told him everything I learned concerning whats happening in this counrty with some rich bastards trying to establish a NWO. He shrugged it all off untill he watched this movie, and now he too is donning the tin foil hat.

I'm pretty sure the information in this movie is factual, and that I've convinced him^ then that gives me inspiration that I'm not living in a delusional state. That there is a group of powerful men influencing our lives, beyond an extent that we can comprehend. This country is filled with people who sit on their asses talking about what is wrong with this world, the problem being, they dont put forth effort to change anything. They think their indvidual lives dont hold any signifigance in the big picture, and when you got a majority of people with this attitude, that where you run into the problem.


There is a souce page...it all checks out.

[Al Davis]

Still, most of it is debatable, and could be considered speculaton...and the slight chance that the information is false or misleading, it will still give you a different outlook on life, so either way, great movie.

[matthew94]

The 'religious myth' section of this movie seems to be based primarily on a book by Tom Harpur entitled 'pagan christ.' Harpur, in turn, depended on 3 main sources (Kuhn, Massey and Higgins) whom he touts as genius experts, but who are, in reality, at odds with the leading egyptomologists in the world. Ward Gasque, a canadian biblical scholar emailed 20 such experts to find whether or not they agreed with Harpur's sources. Of the 10 respondants, only 1 had even heard of these men and he pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995). Other respondants dismissed the claims as fringe nonsense. All respondants agreed that there is no evidence that Horus was virgin born, not any similarity between Mary (a human) and isis (a goddess). The respondants agreed that Virtually none of the alleged evidence in 'The Pagan Christ' is documented by reference to original sources. Harpur is thoroughly refuted here (http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html) or here (http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040623was). Looking at the movie 'source' list, it seems Massy is especially favored by this movie maker. He is exposed here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/massjc.html)

I didn't have much interest in the rest of the movie. Harpur is, after all, a believer in the 'Jesus-as-myth' theory which is a camp that needed to wait 18 centuries of removal from the events just to exist, and is still rejected by the vast majority of scholars Christian and non-Christian alike.

Additionally, the movie casually dismisses historical evidence for Jesus, hoping that viewers accept its conclusion without thinking or researching. Why dismiss 3 ancient historians simply because they refer to 'Christ' and not 'Jesus?' The narrator simply lies when saying Josephus has been proven a forgery. In fact, only certain lines are 'debated' as forgeries, other lines mentioning Jesus are accepted by a vast majority of christian and non-christian scholars. And, of course, why so casually dismiss the gospel accounts themselves?

Finally, the author of the film seems to think it is an argument AGAINST Christianity that there are parallels between the Old Testament Joseph and the New Testament Jesus. This is a laughable assertion considering the very purpose of the Old Testament was to testify of the future ministry of Jesus. To use a silly parallel example, this would be like me claiming that a wedding ceremony wasn't genuine b/c I had just seen the rehearsal the night before.

[l3ills]

The 'religious myth' section of this movie seems to be based primarily on a book by Tom Harpur entitled 'pagan christ.' Harpur, in turn, depended on 3 main sources (Kuhn, Massey and Higgins) whom he touts as genius experts, but who are, in reality, at odds with the leading egyptomologists in the world. Ward Gasque, a canadian biblical scholar emailed 20 such experts to find whether or not they agreed with Harpur's sources. Of the 10 respondants, only 1 had even heard of these men and he pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995). Other respondants dismissed the claims as fringe nonsense. All respondants agreed that there is no evidence that Horus was virgin born, not any similarity between Mary (a human) and isis (a goddess). The respondants agreed that Virtually none of the alleged evidence in 'The Pagan Christ' is documented by reference to original sources. Harpur is thoroughly refuted here (http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html) or here (http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040623was)

I didn't have much interest in the rest of the movie. Harpur is, after all, a believer in the 'Jesus-as-myth' theory which is a camp that needed to wait 18 centuries of removal from the events just to exist, and is still rejected by the vast majority of scholars Christian and non-Christian alike.

Additionally, the movie casually dismisses historical evidence for Jesus, hoping that viewers accept its conclusion without thinking or researching. Why dismiss 3 ancient historians simply because they refer to 'Christ' and not 'Jesus?' The narrator simply lies when saying Josephus has been proven a forgery. In fact, only certain lines are 'debated' as forgeries, other lines mentioning Jesus are accepted by a vast majority of christian and non-christian scholars. And, of course, why so casually dismiss the gospel accounts themselves?

Finally, the author of the film seems to think it is an argument AGAINST Christianity that there are parallels between the Old Testament Joseph and the New Testament Jesus. This is a laughable assertion considering the very purpose of the Old Testament was to testify of the future ministry of Jesus. To use a silly parallel example, this would be like me claiming that a wedding ceremony wasn't genuine b/c I had just seen the rehearsal the night before.


Fair enough, But you say nothing about the similarities between astrology and the bible. That's the main part of it all. The narrator never says "Jesus didnt exist." hes just said there are high odds he didnt exist. afterall the few historians who spoke of him only recorded a few lines....dont you think a man who could walk on water and performed several miracles would get more than a few lines??!!

How can you just shrug off the rest of the film?....The main point of the movie was the two parts after the first.

Americans have been lied to, we need to wake up!

[matthew94]

Fair enough, But you say nothing about the similarities between astrology and the bible. That's the main part of it all.

I have no reason to say anything about the similarities between 'cosmology' and the Bible since the Bible itself says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God'. The film-maker (or, more accurately, the authors he uses as 'sources') are assuming that similarity argues against conservative Christian claims, but this does not follow by any means.

The narrator never says "Jesus didnt exist." hes just said there are high odds he didnt exist. afterall the few historians who spoke of him only recorded a few lines....dont you think a man who could walk on water and performed several miracles would get more than a few lines??!!

But there aren't high odds he didn't exist. The position taken in the film is an extremely minority position. It took 18 centuries to gain any steam whatsoever (prior to that we were still too close to the facts).

Jesus, of course, did get more than a few lines. The authors & film makers casually dismiss the multitude of Christian sources. They then attempt to dismiss the Roman & Jewish sources simply because they are few in number.

Jesus spent his entire life in a geographical area the size of a small state. He never went to Athens or Rome. And yet he and the results of his life are recorded by secular and enemy sources. It's significant that the 1-4th century Jews never dreamed of pretending that Jesus simply hadn't existed. They would have loved to do that, but it was simply impossible. instead, they simply denied his resurrection and called him demon possessed.

How can you just shrug off the rest of the film?....The main point of the movie was the two parts after the first.

Well, I'm not very interested in politics for one. But even if I were, once I know the first 30% of an 'education' film are based on bad sources, why would I continue?

Americans have been lied to, we need to wake up!

I'll end with a note of agreement :)

[35Pete]

I always enjoy a good NWO film/expose. Even if they are complete BS they always make for a good storyline.

Are elements of them true? I'd say definitively yes. Is there a planned takeover of the planet? I doubt it.

[Shakespeare]

If Jesus really existed, why isn't the Middle East predominantly Christian instead of Muslim?

[mikgaes]

Jesus was a Jew.

[Gibby]

Question by l3ills: The narrator never says "Jesus didnt exist." hes just said there are high odds he didnt exist. a....dont you think a man who could walk on water and performed several miracles would get more than a few lines??!!

Answer: First off lets look at the line "afterall the few historians who spoke of him only recorded a few lines". You are making the assumption that we have the great majority of the works by the great majority of Roman historians when in fact we have fragments of fragments. Many of the works of the historians have been lost to history because of time, destruction, and among other things the burning by Aurellian of the Library of Alexandria in the third century completed some 100 years later by the iconoclastic decree of Theophilus c. 390 AD that destroyed all pagan temples. Of tacitus we have very little and thats true of most of of the Roman historians. As for "a man who could walk on water and perform miracles getting more than a few lines", one such as yourself would be helped by an understanding of historiography. For most of recorded history, until probably the Diary of Anne Frank, biographies and histories were written about the powerful and the elite. Jesus was from a purely human standpoint a run of the mill rabbi who was not even a member of the Great Sanhedrin so the fact that at least three historians from no later than 150 AD make reference to him :Tacitus, Josephus, and Suetonius is in a word remarkable. Furthermore you have several gnostic gospels written in addition to the cannonized accounts. So for his societal rank, ravages of history and time upon primary documents and the relative insignificance of the Palestine Province in the Roman empire (Roman Historians sans Flavius Josephus, were focused primarily on Rome not Judea) there is a decent amount of historical accounts for him. In addition to these three historians of whom I can quote directly there are other historians who's works have been lost to time (such as Thallus and Phlegon) but who are cited by Church historians. There are also cruel attacks on Christ by second century Jewish scholars and there is Mara Bar-Sarapion as well as church historians themselves. So as you can see there is a great deal in the historical record that Christ was very real.

[ICRockets]

Question by l3ills: The narrator never says "Jesus didnt exist." hes just said there are high odds he didnt exist. a....dont you think a man who could walk on water and performed several miracles would get more than a few lines??!!

Answer: First off lets look at the line "afterall the few historians who spoke of him only recorded a few lines". You are making the assumption that we have the great majority of the works by the great majority of Roman historians when in fact we have fragments of fragments. Many of the works of the historians have been lost to history because of time, destruction, and among other things the burning by Aurellian of the Library of Alexandria in the third century completed some 100 years later by the iconoclastic decree of Theophilus c. 390 AD that destroyed all pagan temples. Of tacitus we have very little and thats true of most of of the Roman historians. As for "a man who could walk on water and perform miracles getting more than a few lines", one such as yourself would be helped by an understanding of historiography. For most of recorded history, until probably the Diary of Anne Frank, biographies and histories were written about the powerful and the elite. Jesus was from a purely human standpoint a run of the mill rabbi who was not even a member of the Great Sanhedrin so the fact that at least three historians from no later than 150 AD make reference to him :Tacitus, Josephus, and Suetonius is in a word remarkable. Furthermore you have several gnostic gospels written in addition to the cannonized accounts. So for his societal rank, ravages of history and time upon primary documents and the relative insignificance of the Palestine Province in the Roman empire (Roman Historians sans Flavius Josephus, were focused primarily on Rome not Judea) there is a decent amount of historical accounts for him. In addition to these three historians of whom I can quote directly there are other historians who's works have been lost to time (such as Thallus and Phlegon) but who are cited by Church historians. There are also cruel attacks on Christ by second century Jewish scholars and there is Mara Bar-Sarapion as well as church historians themselves. So as you can see there is a great deal in the historical record that Christ was very real.

Damn...I was ready to make the point about the Library of Alexandria and you ruin it by doing a much better job than I could have. ;)

[35Pete]

Was I the ONLY one that watched the ENTIRE movie and didn't flip out at the Jesus comments and stop?

I found it quite interesting.

[Gilly]

Was I the ONLY one that watched the ENTIRE movie and didn't flip out at the Jesus comments and stop?

I found it quite interesting.


i pretty much stopped watching then, rest wouldve been a waste of time.

[35Pete]

i pretty much stopped watching then, rest wouldve been a waste of time.

That's interesting. I read and watch material that I don't agree with even 5 minutes after I get into it.

It's called education and keeping an open mind.

Open mind doesn't mean endorsement. It means mulling over what was presented.

[Green Lantern]

That's interesting. I read and watch material that I don't agree with even 5 minutes after I get into it.

It's called education and keeping an open mind.

Open mind doesn't mean endorsement. It means mulling over what was presented.

If people are bad at logic or shoddy with facts, why listen all the way to the end to their conclusions?

[35Pete]

If people are bad at logic or shoddy with facts, why listen all the way to the end to their conclusions?

To better understand their arguments.

And you'd be surprised how many times you'll be convinced the logic is bad until you wait it out and supportive information is later presented.

[Green Lantern]

To better understand their arguments.

And you'd be surprised how many times you'll be convinced the logic is bad until you wait it out and supportive information is later presented.

Pete, I don't need to understand the arguments of someone who cheats in argumentation.

I may find some of the supporting data interesting but once I have lost trust in a person's ability or credibility, why would I want to listen to anything they say since I would have to discount it with the suspicion that they are twisting everything they cite for their cause?

[35Pete]

Pete, I don't need to understand the arguments of someone who cheats in argumentation.

I may find some of the supporting data interesting but once I have lost trust in a person's ability or credibility, why would I want to listen to anything they say since I would have to discount it with the suspicion that they are twisting everything they cite for their cause?

So...Would you find someone like that dangerous? I would.

[Green Lantern]

So...Would you find someone like that dangerous? I would.

I used to think of them as dangerous. Now they are just a waste of my time.

[35Pete]

I used to think of them as dangerous. Now they are just a waste of my time.

Ohh no. Sophistry can be dangerous. Just because you see the flaw doesn't mean that the average dummed down citizen does.

People in general are good. They just lack the facts. Too much biased media, Opra, and glittertown and all that crap. Too many distractions.

Know the argument if you think it's flawed. More ammo to destroy it.

[Green Lantern]

Ohh no. Sophistry can be dangerous. Just because you see the flaw doesn't mean that the average dummed down citizen does.

People in general are good. They just lack the facts. Too much biased media, Opra, and glittertown and all that crap. Too many distractions.

Know the argument if you think it's flawed. More ammo to destroy it.

Pete, sophistry is dangerous. I do not think you need to learn the whole argument to destroy it. You just stop at the point where the logic or 'facts' fall down and point out the flaw.

As for other people, I'm with Thoreau: I am not the son of a social engineer. I have my hands full with just trying to BE a good citizen, I haven't time for others.

[35Pete]

Pete, sophistry is dangerous. I do not think you need to learn the whole argument to destroy it. You just stop at the point where the logic or 'facts' fall down and point out the flaw.

As for other people, I'm with Thoreau: I am not the son of a social engineer. I have my hands full with just trying to BE a good citizen, I haven't time for others.

Aqua. There are an awful lot of facts with that movie. Now, we may not agree with what the author's conclusions are on those facts, but that nevertheless is information. And information is golden.

I'd recommend watching the entire movie regardless. At the very least it is entertaining.

[shiva2999]

If I stopped reading after a fallacious argument was used I'd never get to the end of 80% of the posts around here.

I agree with Aqua's point That once you spot a debate cheater, their arguments are always suspect.

However, that still doesn't mean that you can't learn something from what they say even though what you might learn isn't what they mean to teach.
Ignoring everyone that doesn't come up to your own standards is self defeating.

It means you'll never communicate with the vast majority of humanity.

[Gibby]

Okay I have agreed to watch the film, but I will post questions about it to aid with discussion.

The first point I make is, yes organized religion can be very dangerous, keep in mind in yet another talking point that the Jesus cult did not become organized religion as we know it today until the Romans made it the state religion. In addition to this point is the statement that religion is given to us by the same people who control international banking and international relations (this sounds like very thinly veiled nineteenth century anti semitism in the form of the works of Goubineau, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, and The Protocols of Zion).

[Gibby]

uh yeah, hate to tell him but only a fool says there is no God. Now I know that this is going to attack Christ from yesterday's thread and say that Jesus never existed to which I will call bullshit for the reasons I stated yesterday. I will also use the most poignant passage of scripture ever written and you can draw your own conclusions from it. So take a minute and read John 10. Sorry but the proof for Christ is overwhelming that he existed at least as a man and to say that there is too little evidence is to forget that during the iconoclastic era of the early days of Christianity as the Roman state religion and the chaos of the collapse of the empire itself a great many historical sources were lost and to say Christ did not exist is simply illogical.

[Gibby]

Actually its not 10 things you should and should not do, its more like 616 and when Christ comes it balloons some three fold. That was a poorly researched piece by I believe George Carlin.

[Gibby]

Once again the funny man is confusing what the religion has become with the beginning. Keep in mind that yes the early church members sold all they had but they shared it in common and aided each other. I love morons who mis diagnose things.

[Gibby]

Oh yeah and I must again call bullshit on the Jesus myth people, because although many of you have taken your critical thinking classes in college and high school you are painfully unaware rather you realize it or not that the Jesus as Myth theorem is steeped in late nineteenth century anti-Semitism. Lets look at its founder for one, oh yeah and then trace it through until you have the German Church of the Nazi era and you will find that the Nazis came to the same conclusions as Bauer, namely that the Jesus cult is steeped in Germanic mythology instead of Judaism simply so they could persecute the Jews. Be wary my friends be wary of Bruno Bauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer

[Gibby]

As for his speaking about the Zodiac, I highly recommend that he read books such as AT Olmstead's History of the Persian Empire.

[Gibby]

And yet you have your "experts" who claim that the Judaic religion was steeped in Babylonian tradition. Guess they are wrong as well.

[35Pete]

uh yeah, hate to tell him but only a fool says there is no God. Now I know that this is going to attack Christ from yesterday's thread and say that Jesus never existed to which I will call bullshit for the reasons I stated yesterday. I will also use the most poignant passage of scripture ever written and you can draw your own conclusions from it. So take a minute and read John 10. Sorry but the proof for Christ is overwhelming that he existed at least as a man and to say that there is too little evidence is to forget that during the iconoclastic era of the early days of Christianity as the Roman state religion and the chaos of the collapse of the empire itself a great many historical sources were lost and to say Christ did not exist is simply illogical.

Proof of God please?

[Gibby]

Damn this guy's as bogus as a George Bush press conference about Iraq.

1) No serious theologian believes that Jesus was born on December 25 (or anywhere near that) and if one takes the clues from Luke's Gospel the Birth of Jesus probably happened sometime in September. So Gibby why don't they celebrate the birth of Jesus in September, your an idiot. Well sure call me an idiot but the reason is quite simply duality. Think about it, you're the Roman emperor and you've just authorized the establishment of a new state religion. Why come up with a new feast day when you can kill two birds with one stone (honor your new diety and tear down the old) and use an already existant feast day?

[Gibby]

Proof of God please?

My life, proof that there is no God please?

[Gibby]

As for twelve disciples actually there were many more and I would argue that you could add Mary Magdalene, Martha, Mary, and a few other women to the mix. You can also throw in some of the pharisees, especially Nicodemus who eventually got the truth, the blind man who said who is the the Lord and then when Jesus called himself Messiah the former blind man believed. There were several dozen disciples so once again I call bullshit.

[Gibby]

Three kings from the orient? (Open your bible and find me the evidence for only three) Keep in mind that this is accepted tradition in the western Church, the Eastern Orthodox tradition is 12. Damn it must suck to be a gullible fool.

[Gibby]

First of the movie's presentation of the birth sequence as completely astrological is bullshit and shows great historical naivity and ignorance. It distorts the facts and accepts common belief, and not teaching and scholarship, as fact.

[Ru]

My life, proof that there is no God please?

How does one prove a negative?

[Gibby]

As for that star there is a great deal of debate about this, some say it was some type of supernova, some say a comet, and some say it was a bright star. I know a few apologists who say that the star that led them was a temporary creation and no longer exists and only existed for that purpose alone (again this film was poorly researched)

[Gibby]

How does one prove a negative?

you can't and when it comes to a faith issue you either do believe or you do not.

[Gibby]

Sidartha Buddha's mother and Buddha's followers wrote in the Latin script? Bullshit.

[Gibby]

Jesus was crucified at Christmas? Really you know thats funny because I could have sworn that he died and rose again in March or April (using the Jewish calender for Passover, in itself a representation of the coming of Christ) and died under Pilate (who until recently was said not to have existed, the archeological and historical records say otherwise about him and Christ.

[Gibby]

Actually it has a lot more to do with Passover, ewww doesn't that just stick in your craw.

[Gibby]

Lots more people bummed around Christ than the 12 disciples, lets not forget the women, some who he healed and some of the righteous pharisees who took him at his word.

[Gibby]

The cross as a lower case T is actually not probably how the original looked. It was far more likely to look like T than t, but what the **** do I know I haven't put together a video.

[Gibby]

Jesus is displayed like the sun to illustrate to an illiterate populace that God the Father sent God the son to be the light of the world, damn it sucks to not remember that during the dark ages the vast majority of people were illiterate and so therefore you need to have icons to educate the populace because they are too stupid to read.

[Gibby]

yes indeed there are passages dealing with ages including one that the moron who made this film forgets. Matthew 24:35 The heavens (that means the sun, the moon, the stars, and the universe) and the Earth will pass away but my word shall never pass away

[Gibby]

Long before the ancient Egyptians? Who? The Babylonians? Nope the Egyptians and Babylonians arose about the same time. Nice try though, but I've always enjoyed the National Enquirer so for the same reason I'll continue watching.

[Gibby]

Yeah the Persians, and they came up with this idea some 500 BC and were the first to record it, but you won't hear that on this film.

[Gibby]

little does the narrator of this film forget that IXOYE (ichthys) is the greek word for fish and also an acronym used among the early and extremely persecuted sect with a dangerous superstition (Suetonious, in both his writings on Nero and Claudius) that means I Jesus, X Christ, O son of Y God E Savior. Wow it must suck to be a moron.

[Gibby]

Actually there are varied estimates as to the year of Jesus' birth as some have it as early as 8 BC and as late as 2 BC (I almost pity the idiocy of the man who made this film)

[Gibby]

No not really sometimes a man with a pitcher of water is just a man carrying a pitcher of water, nice to use one verse of scripture to support your BS now isn't it. So lets see so far wrong about the month of christ's birth, naive about how many wise men, inaccurate as to the year of Christ's birth, where does the idiocy stop?

[Gibby]

funny aquarius is a guy pouring a pitcher of water Jesus said a man carrying a pitcher, I'm picking at hairs but surely the guy has a better argument somewhere.

[Gibby]

the book of Revelation, Daniel, and Jeremiah are highly symbolic in nature and not of the symbolism that this fool speaks of/

[Gibby]

Yeah lets tell that Jesus is astrology to the more than 1 Billion throughout the past 2000 years who have lived, and many times been martyred for the faith. I again call bullshit.

[Gibby]

Uh not really, I've read the story for the Life of Horus and there are many differences with that of Christ

[Gibby]

The story of Noah and similar stories throughout most of the world from Meso America, to China, to Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and Europe let alone Israel tends to point to a common memory of such a flood actually happening. That is all, oh yeah and we aren't talking for some flood on the black sea coast either

[Gibby]

And WTF do they mean by pre Christian account of the flood? The flood was introduced along with the Christian religion and I could have sworn that Judaism in one form or another predated the Church by about 1000 years.

[Gibby]

I remind you that most of the slams on the old testament in this film have their origins in the age of scientific anti semitism

[Gibby]

Guy kind of forgets the purpose of the Egyptian book of the dead and no it was hardly a list of spells (as said in the film, more than not it was what to say to be happy in the afterlife)

[Gibby]

Uh circumcision is not part of the Christian religion and nor is the flood, it is merely an account and again because the flood story has so many renditions across the globe among several cultures it tends to support a common memory.

[Gibby]

Easter was Passover, and Christmas was a feast day for Isis and not the actual birthday of Christ which was sometime in september.

[Gibby]

Way to Misquote Justin Martyr, takes the context of what he was arguing away and misses the point entirely.

[Gibby]

early christians knew how similar Christianity was to pagan religions? Well yeah they did many of them were converts from pagan religions please read the Acts of the Apostles and continue to the various epistles found after it.

[Gibby]

As for the world and how old it is, beats me? I'm personally an old earth creationist and a day could be a literal day or a great epoch of time who am I to say I was not there when God made it.

[Gibby]

Joseph is easily explained by apologetics as forshadowing, something that was seen in the new testament. So I'll fast forward through that part. As for the historical evidence bullshit well I've already discussed that and you are truly a clown if you seek to ignore it.

[Gibby]

Again not all of Josephus is a forgery, just the part of divinity so guess again sherlock. The only thing historical fact disagrees with is you;.

[Gibby]

he exists but the author of this piece's brain does not, oh hi ya matt please feel free to add.

[Gibby]

Tom Paine was a deists, deists by definition are not Christian.

[Gibby]

You may disagree with elements of Christianity but who are you to say its not true? Also who are you to pick hairs of Suetonius who does reference Christ, Tacitus who definitely hints of some Jesus type guy, Josephus who wrote about Christ with only a small portion of his description (about divinity) being disputed by most historians. There are also Thallus and Phlegon (quoted second hand by Christian historians) and parts of the Babylonian talmud. Sorry but there was a Jesus.

[Gibby]

Roman diety, Romans killed people who worshipped a roman construct? WTF?

[Gibby]

Constantine actually had little to do with the Proceedings at Nicea.

[Gibby]

Nicea was in 325 (325 + 1600) is 1925. The reformation happened in the sixteenth century, and really the Vatican lost its stranglehold starting in the late twelfth century. If you are going to use history at least make sure you have your facts straight.

[Gibby]

Jesus asks for blind submition to authority? Really, I'm not seeing it for more on the subject read Foxe's book of Martyrs.

[Gibby]

Yup the religious part of this film is deeply rooted in the nineteenth century's pseudo scientific anti semitism. I'm willing to bet the makers of this film are too dense to figure this one out.

[Gibby]

So part one is complete bolox lets see if part two and three are any better.

[Gibby]

second part thus far seems to be off to a better start.

[pmoon6]

What's bolox? Did you mean bollocks?

[Gibby]

What's bolox? Did you mean bollocks?

I'm a historian, not an English major, okay moonpie? :D

As for part two, well so far so good except that they did find wreckage in the pentagon.

[Gibby]

as for the vid cameras that does lead to some good questions, such as why were they seized?

[pmoon6]

I'm a historian, not an English major, okay moonpie? :D

As for part two, well so far so good except that they did find wreckage in the pentagon.I just didn't know. I thought you might have been refering to some kind of new laundry detergent.

[Gibby]

for every story there is a counter story and they did find wreckage and a debris film not shown in this film but considering they report second hand info from a guy who talked to another guy in most of the film why is this a surprise?

[Gibby]

I still say NORAD was the terrorists (I leave it up to you to decide who I mean by that) blind luck

[Gibby]

I need more on the norad game please.

[pmoon6]

Since we're doing nicknames this week, I'll give you one. Gibby sounds like Libby so I'll start calling you "Scooter". It fits your age as well.

Eh Scoot?

[Gibby]

Since we're doing nicknames this week, I'll give you one. Gibby sounds like Libby so I'll start calling you "Scooter". It fits your age as well.

Eh Scoot?

Okay moonpie

[Gibby]

part two was pretty good.

[Gibby]

Part three seems to be a return to veiled pseudo-scientific anti-semitism. Not looking good.

[shiva2999]

I just watched parts 1 & 2.

Excellent film.

Part 1 must have really touched a nerve with some people.

[35Pete]

Part three seems to be a return to veiled pseudo-scientific anti-semitism. Not looking good.

I don't think they give a rat's patute that all the ultra-wealthy international bankers are jews. I really don't.

They're still arch criminals. :D

[35Pete]

I just watched parts 1 & 2.

Excellent film.

Part 1 must have really touched a nerve with some people.

I don't believe that their is a master plan to round the world up into a slave camp, but I do think that these %$$# suckers are master arch criminals that influence death, poverty, and misery for unimaginable financial gain.

[Gibby]

something to be wary of international banking has often in the past been a euphimism for international jewry.

[35Pete]

something to be wary of international banking has often in the past been a euphimism for international jewry.

Well don't let them off the hook just because someone pointed out that they are hebrews.

Seriously. That just makes those people dirtbags too.

[Gibby]

the right honorable Louis McFadden was a known anti-Semite. Sorry but this whole film is an empty pile of anti-Semitic bullshit, don't hate me for saying you aren't duped. As for WWI, we went because Germany was planning to give the southwest to Mexico and in the 1930s a congressional commission found this story to be pure bullshit. If you want to misuse history to prove a point fine, do it, but I will skull**** you when you are wrong. Lusitania had nothing to do with us getting into the war. Oh and the Lusitania had no ammo, but was suspected of being one.

[Gibby]

This is bogus about WWI

[Gibby]

Bullshit on WWII as well.

[Gibby]

Damn does this ever sound like Jewish Bolshevism. Shame on you if you still believe this shit. Oh as for the Japs well we severed ties with them because of the Jap butchery in Asia and Stalin had a hell of a lot more to do with Jap agression on us than we did. Zhukov slaughtered the Japs and so they attacked us because we were an easier target. I call bullshit.

[Gibby]

Damn those Jews they get the Nazis to advance Jewish interests damn

[Gibby]

Uh no, we did not finance the Soviets, sorry boss.

[Gibby]

We did not attack NVA air defense and military targets until they were operational and did not mine NV ports because we did not want mushroom clouds because of an insignificant southeast Asian civil war. Afghanistan is just.

[Gibby]

Yeah history is repeating itself with this film, especially the pseudo scientific anti semitism that is rampant in this film

[35Pete]

Damn those Jews they get the Nazis to advance Jewish interests damn

Well, in actuality they are not jews. They are of jewish origin. So, no one's impugning them cause they're jews.

You brought up the jewish part and insinuated anti-semetism. I kinda thought that was bull shitty.

And don't shame me. Shame on you for believing that we didn't beg to get into WWII. We did. We knew about Pearl and FDR let it happen.

[Gibby]

well thats two hours of my life that I won't ever have back.

[Gibby]

Shame on you for believing that we didn't beg to get into WWII. We did. We knew about Pearl and FDR let it happen.

Not true, FDR and the Military did what was possible to stop that from happening.

[Gibby]

funny how the people who dismiss the rapture are against some of the very distruction of nationalism that the fundamentalist christian sect is.

[35Pete]

Damn those Jews they get the Nazis to advance Jewish interests damn

Well, in actuality they are not jews. They are of jewish origin. So, no one's impugning them cause they're jews. Word has it that a few are occultists.

You brought up the jewish part and insinuated anti-semetism. I kinda thought that was bull shitty.

[JLB]

:crap: Cool this was a test had there been an actual emergency ........... .:burp:

[Gibby]

Well, in actuality they are not jews. They are of jewish origin. So, no one's impugning them cause they're jews. Word has it that a few are occultists.

You brought up the jewish part and insinuated anti-semetism. I kinda thought that was bull shitty.

I'm not saying the writers of this film are anti-semetic but their argument has anti semetic roots. Check out Goubenau, HS Chamberlain, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Julius Streicher, Hitler, and a whole manner of anti semetic documents and you will shit your pants when you realize just how eerily similar this documentary is to those claims. The Jesus myth hypothesis was written by a nineteenth century German anti-Semite who claimed that the Jews developed religion to control people and divert people's attention away from them. The international bankers thing is a classic euphamism for international Jewish movement amongst anti Semites. I'm surprised that one who claims to be as well read in history as yourself does not see this.

[TigerJ]

I just ran across the thread. I started watching the movie then realized I'll have to stay up until 2 AM to catch the whole thing. Pass. I have to try it another time when I have more time. Just a general observation though. Sometimes people can have a very convincing argument when the target audience is naive about all the information that has been left out.

[35Pete]

I'm not saying the writers of this film are anti-semetic but their argument has anti semetic roots. Check out Goubenau, HS Chamberlain, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Julius Streicher, Hitler, and a whole manner of anti semetic documents and you will shit your pants when you realize just how eerily similar this documentary is to those claims. The Jesus myth hypothesis was written by a nineteenth century German anti-Semite who claimed that the Jews developed religion to control people and divert people's attention away from them. The international bankers thing is a classic euphamism for international Jewish movement amongst anti Semites. I'm surprised that one who claims to be as well read in history as yourself does not see this.
YEs. I am aware of the protocols and the interchangeable buzzwords of "international banker" and "jewish banker". But you know that the latter came from the Rothchilds of England who personify the large mega banking institutions. Now I wouldn't exactly consider the Morgans, or Windsors to be jewish bankers, would you? I think the anti-semites took some, and I repeat for emphasis SOME truths, blended in a generous dose of embellishment, and came up for the "international jewish banking" conspiracy. Here's the catch-22 for both you and I. What if some of this is accurate? That's a tough blow for history buffs like you and I. But if it is true then you couldn't prove it with "official history" because the history itself under that theory is questionable due to to it being alledgedly written to benefit a select few.

[Gibby]

i pretty much stopped watching then, rest wouldve been a waste of time.

I rarely thank you Gilly, but you were right the rest of it was a waste of time.

[Gibby]

YEs. I am aware of the protocols and the interchangeable buzzwords of "international banker" and "jewish banker". But you know that the latter came from the Rothchilds of England who personify the large mega banking institutions. Now I wouldn't exactly consider the Morgans, or Windsors to be jewish bankers, would you? I think the anti-semites took some, and I repeat for emphasis SOME truths, blended in a generous dose of embellishment, and came up for the "international jewish banking" conspiracy. Here's the catch-22 for both you and I. What if some of this is accurate? That's a tough blow for history buffs like you and I. But if it is true then you couldn't prove it with "official history" because the history itself under that theory is questionable due to to it being alledgedly written to benefit a select few.

some of it was true, most of it is not, kinda like the 9/11 commission findings. Indeed there were four hijacked aircraft, 19 Hijackers and OBL did have a hand in that terrible day. However like the 9/11 commission findings, the piece doesn't tell the complete truth. I would say that about 1/3 of this film (part two for those of you who are confused) was spot on. The first part was at very best extremely deficient in research (some interesting points and naturally Judaism would have been influenced somewhat by the astrology and mystery religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians not to mention zoroastrianism but it is also not to much of a stretch to say that as the world experiences cultural, ideological, theological, philosophical, economic, scientific, political, and societal cross pollination it is also very likely that these other religions also adopted trace elements of Judaism so I won't dispute that but the vast majority of part one was speculative at best and was clearly poorly researched. Part three, yes there is such a thing as international capitalists (one of the reasons I will never be a laissez faires librarian such as AnEin and Yourself) who seek to turn a profit no matter what, but I think that their influence is somewhat overpaid. So to make it simple for you

1. Perhaps certain elements of truth, but few and far between and poorly researched

2. Other than a few details and false conclusions it was spot on

3. The third part had more truth than the first part, but was still fast and loose with the truth.

[l3ills]

some of it was true, most of it is not, kinda like the 9/11 commission findings. Indeed there were four hijacked aircraft, 19 Hijackers and OBL did have a hand in that terrible day. However like the 9/11 commission findings, the piece doesn't tell the complete truth. I would say that about 1/3 of this film (part two for those of you who are confused) was spot on. The first part was at very best extremely deficient in research (some interesting points and naturally Judaism would have been influenced somewhat by the astrology and mystery religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians not to mention zoroastrianism but it is also not to much of a stretch to say that as the world experiences cultural, ideological, theological, philosophical, economic, scientific, political, and societal cross pollination it is also very likely that these other religions also adopted trace elements of Judaism so I won't dispute that but the vast majority of part one was speculative at best and was clearly poorly researched. Part three, yes there is such a thing as international capitalists (one of the reasons I will never be a laissez faires librarian such as AnEin and Yourself) who seek to turn a profit no matter what, but I think that their influence is somewhat overpaid. So to make it simple for you

1. Perhaps certain elements of truth, but few and far between and poorly researched

2. Other than a few details and false conclusions it was spot on

3. The third part had more truth than the first part, but was still fast and loose with the truth.



So would you rather just have people read what you posted and buy into everything you say...or watch the movie and read your posts then decide for themselves what they want to believe?


People you need to watch this movie...even if you decide to skip part one.

[Gibby]

So would you rather just have people read what you posted and buy into everything you say...or watch the movie and read your posts then decide for themselves what they want to believe?


People you need to watch this movie...even if you decide to skip part one.

Hey if people want to watch the movie who's to stop them? I'm just saying for the most part its poorly researched.

[JLB]

So would you rather just have people read what you posted and buy into everything you say...or watch the movie and read your posts then decide for themselves what they want to believe?


People you need to watch this movie...even if you decide to skip part one.

Gibby he makes an outstanding point here.
We report you decide sounds pretty good. :rockon:

[JLB]

Hey if people want to watch the movie who's to stop them? I'm just saying for the most part its poorly researched.

how so?

[shiva2999]

The first two parts that I watched were bang on.

Gibby's quibbling was the same as Gupta's quibbling with MM.

And for the same reason.

This movie attacks gibby's BELIEF system.

[matthew94]

Dead on Shiva?

You didn't have a problem with the usage of bad sources and disagreement with good sources?

[shiva2999]

Dead on Shiva?

You didn't have a problem with the usage of bad sources and disagreement with good sources?

As I said, quibbling about sources yet ignoring the overall argument.

Just like Gupta.

The real historical existence of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazreth is beside the point.

The point, which is undeniable is that the Christian myth bears a striking resemblance to other, previous religious myths, that organized religion's main purpose is social control, and that the widespread acceptance of illogical bullshit in the name of religion predisposes people to believe illogical bullshit in the public realm, especially if the entity pushing that illogical bullshit has positioned itself as a quasi-religion.

Like America.

[JLB]

[QUOTE=shiva2999;1712039]The point, which is undeniable is that the Christian myth bears a striking resemblance to other, previous religious myths, that organized religion's main purpose is social control, and that the widespread acceptance of illogical bullshit in the name of religion predisposes people to believe illogical bullshit in the public realm, especially if the entity pushing that illogical bullshit has positioned itself as a quasi-religion.quote

Sounds like a lot of :dunno:

[matthew94]

The point, which is undeniable is that the Christian myth bears a striking resemblance to other, previous religious myths, that organized religion's main purpose is social control, and that the widespread acceptance of illogical bullshit in the name of religion predisposes people to believe illogical bullshit in the public realm, especially if the entity pushing that illogical bullshit has positioned itself as a quasi-religion.


The sources aren't beside the point. It is not undeniable that Christianity bears a striking resemblance to previous religious myths. That was my point. The sources for the film delivered faulty information. The list of similarities wasn't accurate according to actual Egyptomologists.

I won't, however, disagree that organized (institutional) religion controls people (quite often negatively), nor that blind acceptance of dogma without evidence creates a poor intellectual environment...but basically everyone agrees with that. Big deal. The only thing that set part 1 apart from everyone's already established opinion was the stuff that wasn't even true.

[shiva2999]

Finally, the author of the film seems to think it is an argument AGAINST Christianity that there are parallels between the Old Testament Joseph and the New Testament Jesus. This is a laughable assertion considering the very purpose of the Old Testament was to testify of the future ministry of Jesus. To use a silly parallel example, this would be like me claiming that a wedding ceremony wasn't genuine b/c I had just seen the rehearsal the night before.

I don't know Matthew, this seems like a very convenient explanation.

"I didn't plagiarise that article, it predicted mine!"

[matthew94]

I don't know Matthew, this seems like a very convenient explanation.

"I didn't plagiarise that article, it predicted mine!"

It's a 'convenient' trick only if it isn't true

[shiva2999]

It's a 'convenient' trick only if it isn't true

Just like "progressive revelation".

[shiva2999]

BTW, I was doing some reading at the link you provided in your first post and the author said the immaculate conception referred to Mary's birth, not Jesus.

Is that true?

[shiva2999]

And Matthew, this is the first part of the first of the two links you provided that thoroughly rebutted Harpur...

Gullible's Travails

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Critical Look at Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ"
James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Tom Harpur doesn't have the courage to reply to this article. On his website he merely plays the "hey that guy uses a pseudonym, asks for money, and is a big meanie" card, and points readers to Robert Price. He fails to note that I have already responded to Price's critique of my Impossible Faith article. Harpur is obviously completely incapable of defending his work and so has no choice but to resort to diversions. Let his cowardice speak for itself.

Our friends in Canada had now and then asked me about a journalist up their way named Tom Harpur, who writes all manner of squishy New Agish columns for the Toronto Star. Harpur's work doesn't get down here to the States easily; in fact his book of interest here, The Pagan Christ [Thomas Allen, 2004] I could not find in local bookstores and it could not be had via Amazon's American site until more recently (I ordered it via the Canadian one). Perhaps that may have had something to do with laws against importing foreign toxic waste. If that seems hard, it's not. Harpur's book is merely a regurgitation of the absolute worst in "pagan copycat" theories, and serves as an example of material you'll be able to avoid once you use the hints I give on using sources critically. Start with the bibliography, and it reads like a Rogue's Gallery of Scholastic Incompetence: Freke and Gandy, Acharya S, Tim Leedom, T. W. Doane, Earl Doherty, Helen Ellerbe, Kersey Graves, John Shelby Spong, Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, Alvin Boyd Kuhn. These last three (in reverse order) are Harpur's most favored sources; throughout Harpur expresses bewilderment that these three "scholars" (the word he applies liberally to just about anyone, regardless of credentials), especially Kuhn, have been so vastly ignored. The very idea that they have been ignored because of their incompetence and inability somehow never manages to cross Harpur's uncritical mind.



I don't know about you but this guy seems extraordinarily hostile and insulting.

I can understand language like this in the middle of a back and forth, but as a book review?

And calling Harpur a coward for not "facing" a guy who's obviously itching for a fight?

I don't blame Harpur for ignoring someone with an obvious chip on their shoulder.

[matthew94]

BTW, I was doing some reading at the link you provided in your first post and the author said the immaculate conception referred to Mary's birth, not Jesus.

Is that true?

Yeah, that is true. Catholics believe Mary was immaculately conceived. This doctrine developed, seemingly, in order to protect Mary from 'original sin' so that Jesus, too, could be born without the stain of original sin. Catholics protect Mary from the beginning (immaculate conception) to the end (bodily assumption) of her life. Some (most?) would say she never sinned or died. I just finished an interesting book called "mary for evangelicals" that discussed the developtment of these doctrines.

[matthew94]

And Matthew, this is the first part of the first of the two links you provided that thoroughly rebutted Harpur...

I don't know about you but this guy seems extraordinarily hostile and insulting.


I won't argue with your statement about the attitude of the author. He always uses that style it seems. On the other hand, he's one of the only voices that comments on these lesser known controversies, which is why I used his review.

[shiva2999]

Isn't original sin one of Paul's ideas?

[matthew94]

Isn't original sin one of Paul's ideas?

Paul is the one who seems to talk most about what is commonly referred to as original sin, yes. (i guess that's about the blandest way i can answer that question, haha). Frankly, it's not an area of theology that I have super strong opinions about.