ZEITGEIST REFUTED FINAL CUT 4 of 12

[SovereignFOTL]

i;m not a xian but between this guy and Chris White Archarya S's hat has been well and truly nailed on lol

[gonzalez713tx]

The bible is all wrong. It has been translated to so many languages and it has been changed so much. If you christians want to belive in this then its fine, i got nothing against you. But dont shove words down peoples mouths and say "Youre wrong. The bible is perfect and jesus is real" and ect. Thats just something "un-christian" I will belive what I want and thats final.

[cfdp529]

@gonzalez713tx it seems like you haven't even read the good word. sadness. Jesus' message is one of good news. He took our sins. He redeems us. The entire bible is about Him. Old testament to New Testament. I would hope that instead of making baseless claims, you would read and honestly study the bible. I bet you're opinion would change. peace.

[guitarox420]

anybody who doubts this video has an extreme lack of intelligence, very tightly closed mind, inability to collect information, or all three. ;). the logic is set right in front of you, but yet youll believe zeitgeist when most of information is saturated with claims from wich no evedence is presented

[SovereignFOTL]

@guitarox420 You actually wrote this with a straight face? --> "anybody who doubts this video has an extreme lack of intelligence, very tightly closed mind" -???

ROLMFHO

[guitarox420]

@SovereignFOTL You didn't understand what i meant? or what.... I miss one comma, and you can't find your head in your ass? Don't waste your time talking to me then bro...

[SovereignFOTL]

@420 i'm not a grammar nazi, fool ... the irony is YOU are the one w the "very tightly closed mind" ..get on to the work of Santos Bonacci, former Jehovah's Witness, a.k.a/ MrAstrotheology & educate yrself - his presentations are SELF-EVIDENTLY true! Chris White is brainwashed. He had a profound RELIGIOUS experience involving a being he recognises as Jesus Christ, dogmatically embracing the non sequitur that the NT must be LITERALLY true when it's EASILY DEMONSTRATED to be an encoded occult text

[SovereignFOTL]

@guitarox420 it's pitiful how desperately y'all cling on to yr busted religion! -you're brainwashed as most Marxists are so no amount of evidence contradicting yr (until recently 'approved') worldview can be credited by xians b/c this ancient mind control programme established a firewall the moment yr psyche was entered by what YOU invited in believing it the "Holy Ghost", a purely legal construct invented in the 4thC A.D. You've been hoodwinked by Talmudic scholars. They're laughing at you.

[sienna890488]

The bible is a Manuel for achieving enlightenment. It is a book of symbolism. Words, symbols, astrology, and prophecy. The 12 disciples are NOT the complete zodiac. They are 4 in 1.(Foreign ones) hence 1+2=3 3x4=12

You know, The bible could say " The sky is black. " And there will be wars and hate and distention over it. It is a divine book if read properly. Not what you have been told it says to believe.

[assnt123]

Hei guy you forgot , that the constalations of the zodiac, was alredy meet by the Egyptians in first, but wasn´t by Babilonians. Zeitgeist can be wrong in same of this things, however you are wrong abaut, when was faind the constalations of the zodiac first.

[TheConspiracyMan8]

the question is who's family? and is this family gene pool still exists?

[TheConspiracyMan8]

to me the bible is a story of a particular semitic family and is the written geneology of that certain clan.

[TheConspiracyMan8]

his way to demascus... can we really give more credance to what paul says and not accept david icke?? my point is both david icke and paul had some kind of spiritual awakening which i think they personally made up or were on drugs. SCAM folks!! i think there was someone named jesus but it's not this god figure the world is fixated on.

[helicoidaxiom]

7:32 - a mention of the NT being written "in Jesus' generation," is inaccurate. The Epistles of Paul (earliest known books of the NT) did not appear until decades AFTER the alleged death of the Christ figure. And the gospels (which all contradict each other directly) were not written until the 2nd Century CE. I'm trying to remain objective, but this video has grown ponderous because the argument is extremely thin.

[hailtotheking324]

0:15 first Zeitgeist says the sun resides in THE VICINITY of the southern crux.. 1:55 and then it says the sun dies on the cross haha and rises again..the creator of zeitgeist just seems so desperate to destroy Jesus

[mpdomi]

At 4minutes into this I've decided you're an idiot.

[TheTone714]

Alright you proved pt. 1 is fake. Now prove that the bible is true.

[MsScorcher21]

@TheTone714 nice point :)

[DavidCasperChannel]

@TheTone714 Proving the Bible was absolute truth to everyone would throw FAITH out the window. And FAITH is what its all about...TRUST and submitting to a promise. So that argument doesn't work for us Christians. You cannot have true LOVE without freedom of choice. A Bible that states clear, physical facts would cause people to serve GOD out of FEAR and not LOVE. God is not of held by time and space and wants us to realize that and focus our thoughts on his realm.

[rawkuslegend]

Where do you get the evidence of the Zodiac being a formulation of the Babylonians in 500 BC? Herodotus himself plus Plato give credit to the early Egyptians. Bauvals book The Egypt Code sticks the nail in the coffin. What annoys me about this debate is that you have skeptics, evangelicals, and atheists, and other charlatans all making their claims. The problem is, no one has yet to make a valid discussion without emotions getting involved. Proof? Misinformation coming from all sides.

[Beast72485]

BULLSHIT............

[TheBoopski]

Also the Resurrecting SUN was known well before the NEW TESTAMENT. Just like this video states the facts about the winter solstice. The Sun was known to have died the night of Dec 21st and was dead because winter SYMBOLIZED death and the SUN did not move towards the South or the North for 3 days...the three darkest days of the year. I'll be back to prove the rest of this video FALSE !

[kadjach]

@TheBoopski wish you luck my brother...Jesus loves you still

[conspirator272727]

@TheBoopski But even if Jesus's birth was indeed on December 25th (which it is not), how does this "resurrecting Sun" correlate with his birth? The three days of death and then resurrection have absolutely nothing to do with his birth, but instead his death. And vice versa, December 25th has nothing to do with his death. These are set on two distant dates, neither of relation. I guess this theory would work out ok if he was born and died on 12/25 but neither is true.

[TheBoopski]

@conspirator272727 What you miss is the ASTROLOGY part to this puzzle. Jesus is representing the SUN in the age of Pisces. That means he is the SYMBOL of the SUN but representing Pisces. The Pisces personality is centered around spirituality and intuition often coupled with compassion for others and a willingness to sacrifice themselves for others. Pisces represents not only water but the end of winter.(symbolizes death) What's after winter ? Spring when our earth RESURRECTS. THINK ABOUT IT !!

[TheBoopski]

Josephus Flavius,De Vita Mosis,Chuck Missler and John Pratt...even Wikipedia points to the 12 tribes being examples of the 12 constellations. Job is believed to have been an adult when Moses was allegedly born, which would mean that Job's adventures and story, with its discussion of the Mazzaroth/12 signs, preceded Moses and the gathering together of 12 tribes.

[TheBoopski]

In reference to your claim about the 12 tribes not relating to the Zodiac because of the dating....ever hear of the Mazzaroth ? Job is the oldest book of the bible and it's mentioned right there Job 38: 31-33. Not only that the Mazzaroth has deeper roots and goes beyond the bible...

[maxypadzzz]

hi guys.. im doing a thesis on propaganda and conspiracy theory films.. is there anywhere I can get the transcript for all the debunking videos? be v helpful.. cheers

[Peterwhitlock]

come to the Peter Whitlock channel and see the real answer from God! The real city to save mankind! spread the word! the prophecy has come true and you can build right away and save lives and the future

[daehder613]

12 king of isreal also have reference to the 12 jewels on the queen's crown---RING OF POWER mentioned this and The ARRIVALS

[daehder613]

this video is saying astrology started in babylon....did i get that right...because the sumarian stones says otherwise

[TheCosmo12345]

WATCH ...RING OF POWER ..PARTS 8-11

[daehder613]

ring of power is good....legend of atlantis get in detail as well...

[TheCosmo12345]

WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLICAL JOSEPH

[1984vrs]

@TheCosmo12345 The story of

Joseph claim was greatly exaturated if you compare the two stories therer are hardley any similarities and believe me I'm being extra generous to some possible interpritation that could be concluded from the King James translation which was the one cited in Zeitgeist the movie.

[mainsqueeze1977]

The fish as a symbol for Christianity has no link to astrology or alchemy at all but really is an acrostic made of "Jesus CHrist, God's Son, Saviour". It probably also developed because of the link of Jesus and the Apostles to fishing. One need not invent meanings for it!

[mainsqueeze1977]

One point that just came to me: if the sun/son (lol!) dies on the southern cross and returns three days later scenario were true, the crucifixion would have been placed at Christmas (25 December) and not Easter (in spring), as that supposed scenario occurs in December, not spring.

[WHollabaugh]

It's not the Christianity was a copy of Ancient Egyptian religions, the theory is that our modern religions were influenced by ancient ones.

What if their right? Is it un-Christian to consider the possibility that all religions started off as different interpretations of an older, more accurate religion? You know, like the Mormons JUST demonstrated historically.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Sure, religions influence one another. But S. and Z. do claim that various religions are identical, are in essence sun/star-religion. For Judaism this is untrue, untrue for Christianity etc. S. and Z. try to force very disparate religions into the same, pretty unspiring pattern.

Un-Christian is not the question. One can consider, but than one has to dismiss the obvious nonsense.

Why should "older" equal "more accurate" - and the Mormon started something entirely new.

[WHollabaugh]

I'm really getting tired of hearing people try to convince themselves that D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. is discredited.

The link shows numerous scholars and highly credited authors who agree with Acharya S.

The AHA refuses to acknowledge facts that she bare's in mind in her writings because they are bias. She had to learn foreign languages to obtain the knowledge she has on the subject and there really is no greater authority on Egyptian mythology.

To dismiss her as loony, is simply ignorant.

[WHollabaugh]

Okay, well I would post the lynk, but it won't let me.

It's at 'stellarhousepublishing-dot-co­m' and the html is christinegypt.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Your link gives the breathtaking number of two scholars, one archeologist (of whose "highly credited" status I know nothing) , the other Robert Price (hardly a highly respected man and - who elswhere has spoken against Mrs S.

The rest are reader's comments and a list of scholars she used for her books (but how?) but that doesn't mean that these agree with her, especially since some of them are dead.

NEITHER HISTORIOGRAPHY NOR EGYPTOLOGY AGREE with her, no matter how you pretend!

[WHollabaugh]

This is exactly the reason you cannot be reasoned with. Anything that conflicts with your pathetic paradigm is immediately dismissed and that which agrees is accepted. Those are the very qualifiers for delusional mentalities.

Until you learn to understand both sides of a story in their entirety, you will never perceive where the misunderstandings lie, you will instead argue the validity of details that the rest of us have already ascended beyond.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Actually, my paragdigm (that of serious scholarship) demands only reason and evidence. Too bad that it affirms the historicity of Jesus.

Two sides of a story? I both lauded and criticised this refutation, while your loyalty towards the the Z film or by Mrs S was been unswerving and absolute. And no, you cannot ascend beyond details that are inaccurate or lies and still maintain the validity of the whole unless that whole is purged of these lies. However, the whole part 1 is nothing but lies.

[WHollabaugh]

That which you refer to as "lies" are not, they are differing interpretations. You speak as if there exists any solid evidence for or against the existence of Jesus when even the most modestly non bias historian would beg to differ.

You are anything but non bias. The fact that you continue to argue with me rather than understand my position is the very reason you persist this childish debate.

[mainsqueeze1977]

well, there does exist solid evidence - at least as solid as for comparable figures. But was not what I meant by lies but the more or less easily transparant claims about star symbolism, about Horus and Krishna etc.

No, I am not "non bias" but neither are you. (Actually, noone is.) I am at least willing and able to listen and think through (for a time) what Z and S put forth, while you swallow everything hook, line and sinker.

[WHollabaugh]

I never stated that I was in agreement with Acharya S. I only stated that her theories make sense and that they are not discredited. I also believe her theories make more sense than other interpretations of the Bible.

Personally, I think all religions are different interpretations of something big that happened. Try looking at it all as if it were a riddle, you would be surprised how many religions have a "messiah," and how many similarities they all have.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Well, you defended her all the time. If her theories arent dscredited, it is because they are so fringe that hardly any serious scholar would bother. They should however, people read that stuff unfortunately and believe.

Her interpretations make no sense at all - hers are preconceived theories that then dig for any possible (or impossible) material to use.

[mainsqueeze1977]

The most sensible interpretation is that there was a guy called Jesus, steeped in Jewish tradition, putting forth his "version" and having followers. Whether one believes his message or in his resurrection or not is an entirely different matter. That is a matter of faith, a decision one has to make or not (though evidence plays a role here too).

But his historicity is a subject of scholarship and has been well proven.

[WHollabaugh]

If you believe the lies in this film and do not believe the scientifically justifiable theories in Zeitgeist, then you are nothing less than delusionally brainwashed by religion.

Jesus never existed because God would never be so petty as to allow something as avoidable as Sin, Satan or Hell to exist.

God would never allow you, his children, to burn for any reason. Not rapests, not slavers, not murderers, not even Hitler.

Your purpous is your technology, not your faith.

[mainsqueeze1977]

There are no "he scientifically justifiable theories in Zeitgeist" but simply a collection of discredited, outdated or even nonsensical claims.

Again your arguments are wishful thinking "Jesus never existed because would never ..." That isn't even a logically tenable thought but like saying you don't exist because God wouldn't allow you. Obviously, he did. How can sin (moral error) be avoided given free will - you haven't even begun to think on these matters.

[mainsqueeze1977]

It's not just me that considers Mrs S. unscholarly - scholars in the respective fields do that. I have better things to do than read pseudoscientific books - it is up to her to give real evidence for her claims, not by denying the existence of evidence for the contrary.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Not automatically but the reader cannot fail to wonder why you would cite Blavatsky on that? What is here authority for that question. Citing her once for such things (and it happens that Mrs B. is only valid as a source for herself and her philosophy) would taint your work. In academics this citation would get you into trouble.

[mainsqueeze1977]

As I said, there is no such thing as unbiasedness. However, one doesn't have to read everything by one author to see how reliable they are. Only the gullible read and swallow it all.

[WHollabaugh]

Seriousely, the lies are in the debunkings, not the Zeitgeist Films.

To this day not one person has been able to prove anything stated in these films to be a lie or simply untrue.

They argue simantics in an ill attempt to protect their illogical faith in a dying religion.

Atheism is on the rise, there are currently 5 times as many Atheists today as there were in 2004 and we convert more of you every day with nothing more than education.

[mainsqueeze1977]

You are totally in denial - the list of Z claims revealed as hogwash or lies is quite long. But your comment clearly shows that this whole thing is an atheism-evangelisation-tool, hence all the allegations you level against the supposed dishonesty and gullibility of adherents of other religions also falls on your religion.

[WHollabaugh]

No, you are totally deluded. The fact is that I have no religion to clowd my perceptions and that is why I understand the intent of these films.

You would rather assume that the long list of arguments against the validity of Zeitgeist's claimes are true then actually attempt to understand why both arguements are simultaniousely true.

Zeitgeist has no false claimes in it that I could find after years of extensive research... sorry.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Wasn't it you that sang the song of rising atheism and how "my faith" were illogical. Perfect examples of one religion/philosophy/weltanscha­uung calling its competitor stupid. You embody what you accuse religion(s) of and with a vengeance.

And there's no going around it: Z. is just a bunch of false claims - this has been amply demonstrated.

[WHollabaugh]

No, idiots are convinced that Zeitgeist makes false claimes because they were miseducated for years and years. nYour persistant refusal to acknowledge simply facts and similarities is proof enouph of that.

Go ahead and mantain your ignorant paradigm, it makes no difference to me, but your readers will see the logic in my words and realize the truth nonetheless.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Great, anyone who disagrees with the Z. film is an idiot and refuses to acknowledge "simply (sic!) facts".

I am very confident in the intelligence of readers, even of you tube comments, if they read your great, intelligent proclamations.

You really are a true believer in that film.

[WHollabaugh]

I believe in humanity.

I don't need someone telling me that I'm a sinner and need forgiveness for my very nature as a thinking, feeling, sexual human being. I don't buy it, no God would ever allow Hell to exist.

What kind of a sadist makes his children violent, horny and curious if he's only going to punnish them for those things?

There is no "test," there is only the lies of the church and the untaxed billions they take in every year.

[mainsqueeze1977]

But you do believe in wishful thinking, do ya? And I must say that you have understood Christianity at all. Otherwise you are motivate by hatred of what you do not understand, envy and greed. What is humanity?

[WHollabaugh]

mainsqueeze1977,

Wishful thinking is a fact of life for most of you monkies.

The fact that I am above that which you consider to keep you nobel doesn't mean that I am somehow less knowledgable of your own religion than you. Quite the contrary actually, I know where your religion was born, who invented it and I know why your messiah died to free you from it's opressive concepts. There is no such thing as sin.

Yet here you are still fearful of "sin."

You humans were made to be slaves.

[mainsqueeze1977]

First you believe in humanity and call me "monkey" but then you talk about humans as if you weren't one.

Accepting one's limitations is not akin to being "fearful" or a "slave".

How can you say there is no "sin" (i.e. moral error) but then lambast me for my "errors".

And no, the little you might know about the origins of Christianity (which is not the same as believing its claims) is overshadowed by the fallacies you think to know, those included in the Z. film.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Do you really think that shouting out insults will convince anyone? (Not to speak of your orthography!) Or your self-elevation, talking about "your wisdom"?

[WHollabaugh]

No, researching the staggering reference references provided by both Zeitgeist and this joke will convince people.

You cling to ridiculous arguments like the Mari-Mary thing to avoid the point of the film which is to point out the origins of mythologies without excluding the Bible from his thesis.

It's obvious that he is bias, but his references are not discredited at all, quite the contrary in fact according to Dr. Ken Feder of the history channel and multiple publishings on the subject.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Despite all these references being to loonies like Mrs S or outdated authors? Yes, if readers are as gullible as you they will be convinced.

Meri-Mary (or son-sun) might not be a big thing but it is indicative of the discerning attitude of the Z-makers, that they will take any argument, no matter how obviously nonsensical. But the more sophisticated stuff is bogus too (and the refutation talked about that too).

Bias? As if Mr Joseph or Mrs S weren't biased! There is no such thing as unbiased.

[WHollabaugh]

No, they're not outdated, or loonies.

Peter used 26 referenced by 20 different authors, all of whom have PHDs in relevant fields, including D.M. Murdock. That's 20 more college degrees used by Peter than by all the refutation films combined! Their references included the Bible and five authors, all of whom are ministers with no college education.

I can not begin to tell you how ridiculous and meaningless your persistence in this debate really is.

The fact is that you are the gullible one.

[WHollabaugh]

You are gullible in that you have been convinced with minimal effort that Zeitgeist is something that it's not.

Peter Joseph's film addresses social influences and their effect on our psychology as a whole.

This film has you convinced that his film is an attack on your faith when in fact it's an attack on noncritical thinking.

It also has you convinced that Peter's reference list is anything less than credible and numerous college professors across the country would beg to differ.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Nonsense! It wasn't this film that convinced me, I could make out myself from watching Z. (or another, equally valid film, from which Z. copied most) that it was hogwash.

The film (part 1) IS an attack on Christianity but it is also an attack on critical thinking.

We are talking solely about part 1 though the latter parts are not much better.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I never answered your question because there is nothing to answer! Yes, I read a bit of Mrs S but then stopped because I got the unscholarly, Däniken-like nonsensical picture.

BTW, I now take it that your 15 Egyptologists aside Budge were indeed fictional (if not a lie) - so much for not answering questions.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Sure, Blavatsky has zero authority on anything, including Sargon. However, the fact that Z. quotes her on Sargon makes it clear the film makers either are unable to find proper sources or to distinguish between proper sources and hogwash or simply do not care, thinking their audience gullible enough. And if they did it once, they are expected to do it again ... and they do!

[mainsqueeze1977]

Citing Blavatsky as a source would be enough to discredit the film - but alas it is not the only blunder. It also goes to show who really has his views dictated by dogma!

[mainsqueeze1977]

Don't be ridiculous. Not a single source but most. Just watch the film and you'll see a bunch of sources that are either wrong or deceptively used. I attack Z. because it makes faulty claims based on faulty sources (don't care about what these authors do in their free time) - ah, and Blavatsky's books are totally worthless, at least historically, without even the pretense of scholarship. That you bring her up is telling.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Since the faulty claims of Z. come from books like those of Mrs S, I don't see the point of thinking the one serious and scholarly and the other not. I read enough to comment. One doesn't have to eat the entire apple to know that it's rotten.

[WHollabaugh]

"Everyone who reads Murdock's Christ in Egypt should understand that the sources she cites are anything but marginal or questionable. In fact, her sources are, at least as far as I can tell, entirely within the Egyptology mainstream and many are, in fact, revered, and deservedly so, within the community of Egyptologists. The fact that these sources are mainstream, highly respected, or even seminal does not, of course, make them right about the origins of the Christ story."

[mainsqueeze1977]

The sources she cited - she can cite reputable source and still interpret them to be hogwash, which is exactly what she's doing.

Ah, and BTW; this is what Dr. Feder is saying here.

[WHollabaugh]

No Christian ever researches anything that contradicts their pathetic dogma.

Those that do are Pagan, Atheist or Agnostic today.

Why do you think they continue to defend the verses in the Bible that say it's alright to sell your daughter into slavery, or that it's okay to stone disobedient children, or even acknowlege the fact that their God is sadistic.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Pure polemics (as no Christian actually claims these things) and totally beside the point. Are these scholarly questions?

The whole "Jesus myth" theory is just a safeguard of atheists weak in their faith trying to keep them from the possibility of taking things seriously. The same goes for your silly attacks!!!

Guess what, many serious historians (some quoted in the film above) are not actually Christian.

[WHollabaugh]

The religious back ground of the historians are not in question you fool. Your pathetic attempt to convince the readers that you are somehow magically more knowlegable on this subject is only succeeding in illustrate your stupborn igorance.

As well as your attempt to make my quoting facts appear as attacks.

Fact: Mainsqueeze1977 is religiousely bias against knowlege.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I did not bring up "religious background", you mentioned it first, claiming that only atheists or whatever are credible.

I am not magically more knowledgable and never claimed I were. What I did and do is point to actual scholars, not frauds like Mrs S or the Z film.

Anyway it is not about me. Many people know a frauf when they see one and Z. is one.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Now, not just because they disgaree but th

And it might not take a genius but it takes more than some know-it-all posting on the internet.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Of course they can be bent. Zeitgeist and the like prove that amply. Sure Z. and Mrs S. are not actually scholarly works but they might be just extreme forms of what others are doing. And no, they would not immediately be thrown out. How blind is your face in scientist? They are human and humans can err! Even comparative mythologists!

[mainsqueeze1977]

Sure, it requires a lot of abilities and hence only a few would be able to really do scholarly work in the field. The number that writes about however is larger. And maybe the breadth of required knowledge in disparate fields leads to a lack of depth of the individual fields. The field also has a built in presumption of parallels and thus ppl may bend things to make them parallel, just like you and Zeitgeist.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Considered by whom? You know the OT itself cannot speak of Christianity - it needs to be interpreted and this it interpreted differently by Jews and by Christians. What is Hogwash is "skeptical bible study" as it is reading the bible without understanding it while thinking one knows it all. The same intellectual superiority compley that also besets Zeitgeist and its makers.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I was talking about the field. Maybe the field is one with low standards for academic rigour, lower than Egyptology?

[mainsqueeze1977]

So you are back to niceties and brilliant arguments again. Why I should I take it seriously? Given that you take Zeitgeist seriously and invested three years to study this hogwash, I can imagine what it's like. Actually, I now took a peep and "skeptical bible study" already clarifies that it is total hogwash too. And what in "OT is holy scripture to Christiantiy" don't you understand?

[mainsqueeze1977]

Sure goddesses. But why should goddesses not be deflowerable if Horus can get his eye poked out? Oh, and now it is Indian gods? You talked about Egyptian goddesses before. You cannot base a claim about Egypt on an utterly different culture like India.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I don't know because I didn't watch it. As I said, I don't base myself on some random youtube video (especially if it is just "some reading some passages"). I have read the OT myself btw so don't expect to convince me as such.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Maybe comparative mythology has pretty low standards? One should turn to Egyptologist whether they would think Budge accurate on his depiction of Egyptian religion. A comparison of two religions in which (at least) one is misunderstood cannot yield valid results, can it?

[mainsqueeze1977]

And the argument is wrong. The attributes of Jesus or any other elements cannot be found in numerous pre-christian gods. And Z. goes further, deducing from supposed parallels that Jesus never existed. You are misrepresenting the film's intent.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I don't base my information on youtube films. The Old Testament is holy scripture to Christians. You can criticize them for being wrong but not state that Christianity is heretical to the OT.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Anubis never became a man either. Egpytian gods are deities not human beings. Corporeal yes, even mortal (apparently, since Osiris dies) and injurable (as Seth and Horus mutilate each other - also putting your "cannot be deflowered into doubt). The eternal, transcendent God becoming man is a totally different "story".

[mainsqueeze1977]

In Horus' case there is no incarnation as there is no crossing from the divine into the human sphere, whereas in Christianity the eternal, transcendent God actually became a human being (an unheard of event for sure). Egyptian gods never were that transcendent and never became man. Horus never had two fathers. Neither of Jesus' fathers was resurrected. And son on.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Leaving things said aside: if you actually compare Horus and Jesus the differences are far greater: Horus was a god born of a godess as mother (virgin, no-vigirn or sort-of-virgin), begotten by a god as father. Jesus however was a human being, born of a human mother (virgin or not). Legally, he had a human father and Christians believe his actual father was the eternal God who fathered him with the Virgin Mary and that he was the incarnation of God's word, making him divine too.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Nonsense. The Lord in the Torah clearly forbids the Israelites of worshipping anyone else. But let's not talk semantics. Christians retained that monotheism and found differing ways of reconciling Jesus' elevated status with it. If Jesus is one person of the triune God (orthodox position), he is God, not any extra being. Modalism makes Jesus the same as the Father (again, no extra being). Arianism makes Jesus some semi-divine figure (there you'd have a problem but few Christians believe that.)

[mainsqueeze1977]

The extent of his output is in no way linked to his positions being accepted today (after all, he has been dead for 75 years) as translations were improved and academics standards (fact vs. opinion) were tightended. According to Budge, Egyptians were quasi-monotheists which just isn't true. And so on. I don't denigrate his energy but one shouldn't just accept everything regardless of recent scholarship just because Budge is easily avaiable.

[mainsqueeze1977]

The word "angel" means messenger but messenger are in bringing messenges or running errants intermediaries. There are many accounts of this in the Old Testament. "Being worshipped" is not necessary for that. The point is: you made a big but irrelevant claim based on nothing but your (rather garbled) reading of the Old Testament.

[mainsqueeze1977]

That's a lie and you know it. Budge is respected yes but his theories about Egyptian religion are out of date at best. Hardly anyone takes him serious. And since you are sticking with him, it seems that your 15 others were fictional as well.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I was tempted to add "And don't come to me with Budge" but I though reputable would be enough. I was hoping for an Egyptologist whose ideas are accepted today in the field. Not fringe authors!

[mainsqueeze1977]

Your comments become more ridiculous by the hour. The Old Testament forbids the worship of other gods beside the Lord, which later develops into the belief that there is just one god. It actually quite a few intermediaries called angels. But how this addresses my point I don't know. Somehow all forms of Christianity found their ways of reconciling monotheism and the belief in Christ's special position (virgin birth =/= divinity).

[mainsqueeze1977]

I was wondering the same thing. Give me one reputable (!!) Egyptologist scholar describing Isis as a virgin?

[mainsqueeze1977]

Yes, but that is something totally different. Of course, Christianity is based on Jewish thought as it began as one among many Jewish sects. Other sects perished and another developed into Rabbinic, Talmudic Judaism. The Jewish sect adhering to Jesus however gained much more followers among gentiles.

[mainsqueeze1977]

300 out of how many? And actually I doubt that number!

[mainsqueeze1977]

Ah, and most importantly: the goddess we are talking about here, Isis, was not a virgin (in some versions not even when she was born). Your two arguments for that were "(Egyptian) deities cannot be deflowered" (which make the whole 'discussion' meaningless) and "(Almost) all goddesses are virgins", another mere assertion not proving anything for Isis.

[mainsqueeze1977]

That doesn't change anything. "Almost all" is still a big claim for which you have zero basis. Very few godesses were actually perceived as virgins. You are making the claim, you should be able to prove it with reliable scholarship (i.e. not Archyra S. rubbish).

[mainsqueeze1977]

No, Vishnu is a god in India where the concepts are and were completely different. Transferring the term is like saying Elizabeth is Pharaoh of Britain. Jesus is not considered by any Christian "a god reborn" but the eternal word of God the Father born as a human. Not reborn! And in Hinduism such incarnations happen quite often, in Christianity (based on Jewish thought) only once ever.

[mainsqueeze1977]

An avatar is a term of Hinduism and describes a deity incarnating (such as Vishnu does several times) - one such incarnation is an Avatar. Maybe Indians would describe Jesus as an avatar (but not of God the Father) but that doesn't make the term with all its bagagge applicable. But I don't want to argue about the term.

Can you type a single posting without insults? Would that be a challenge?

[mainsqueeze1977]

Well, why is it! Quite simply it is NOT "that almost all of goddesses that live (sic!) are defined as virgins. Some goddesses are virgins (most prominently the Greek Artemis) while others are clearly not. You generalising claim just isn't true!

[mainsqueeze1977]

More nonsense. Isis had sex with Osiris many times. Goddesses (where?) were NOT mostly defined as virgins. Aphrodite was not a virgin - an absurd thing to say about the goddess of love. Artemis was the virginial goddess.

Jesus or Horus. Jesus never was considered a "virgin born god", and certainly not an "avatar". Neither was Horus an avatar as this belongs to India. With Jesus, Christians believe that he is fully man and fully god, born of a virgin.

[mainsqueeze1977]

No, a virgin birth needs foremost a virgin, i.e. a woman that never had sex before.

Let's overlook the fact that Isis is a godess and not a woman in the strictest sense, she had sex with Osiris many times, once after his death (at least in one version) involving his reassembled corpse and a fake penis.

Divine Conception: well both Isis and Osiris were considered divine, hence there is no human son of god, simply divine son of divine parents.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Only this rampage never happened. Many books - christian or not - got lost over time without any censorship campaign - what we have (on either side) is what survived. Books that were of no interest weren't copied.

And no, the issue still fundamentally the historicity of Jesus (for this debate - not for serious scholarship of course: there is no debate about it there).

Since there is enough evidence for it, you'll have to invent reasons for a lack of counterevidence.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Thanks for your really deep and thoughtful response. Quite apart for the fictiousness of the name "Isis-Meri" and its non-connection to the Hebrew name Marijam, the claim that Isis was a virgin is nonsensical. In-vitro is not virginal, is not nonsexual either. You also fail to notice that Egypt's myths come in various version, one havin Isis and Osiris copulating even in their mothers womb.

[mainsqueeze1977]

It is hilarious to use supposedly once existing sources of whose contents we know nothing. They might have existed but we cannot base anything on them without having read them. Christian authors were lost in time too. It is clear that you have determined the outcome already and now manipulate the sources to fit it.

[mainsqueeze1977]

But whether Jesus or Socrates was divine is not the issue of his historicity. DIvinity is a matter of faith and within that faith a matter of theology. His mere existence is the same for either - and it is the historicity that is disputed by Zeigeist and its associates. (And if you want divine claims, how about the Spartan general Lysander?)

[WHollabaugh]

Thank you, at leased someone here knows a damn thing about Egyptian mythology.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Four famous historians do refer to Jesus being crucified. But that's not the real issue - why this nonsensical insistence on non-Christian sources. What are the sources for Socrates not written by Socrates's followers? One has to take ALL sources into account, not just the ones by non-Christians. Does a historian have to believe every word? Certainly not! But when it comes to Jesus's existence, there is no sensible denying it.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Well done, thought it would have been better without the repeated anti-catholic jibes about supposed paganisation, which are just as old and discredited as the Mithrean parallels. (E.g. one cannot speak of a paganisation of Sunday if Christians worshipped on Sunday prior to that. Constantine merely made it a public holiday.) As for the Zeitgeist fans: one need not refute everything the film (or part 1) says when already most of the claims mentioned are dated at best, but mostly bogus.

[XiaoFury]

I come from a family of twelve....does this mean my family has some super cool background?! lol

[WHollabaugh]

Make sure you give this comment a thumbs down, that way you can express your stupidity without actually using words or reason.

Do some real research on zeitgeist for yourselves and figure it out. Quit listening to this idiot that keeps stating false facts and half truths to back up his insignificant view on an obviously delusional religious belief.

[McClinchey09]

all u did was call this director what he is calling the director of zeitgest... do you have an argument or maybe your own opinion? all i i know is that zeitgest main function is to destroy ppls faith and its doing a great job

[WHollabaugh]

Only 30 minutes of the obviously sociologically oriented films that Peter Joseph made addressed about Christianity. It's is presumptuous to assume this film to be anything more than a temper tantrum by a college student experimenting with drugs.

Look at it this way, If you were an alien with no concept of money, religion or laws and you wanted to know why humans aren't working together to save the planet, what would you blame?

Money, religion and politics. These three things of war.

[WHollabaugh]

No, McClinchey, only 30 minutes(1/5th) of the film addressed religion and it attacked all religions with a messiah, not just Christians. Peter Joseph initially wrote Zeitgeist as a project in film school with no further aspirations for it.

However, everything he states in the movie is in fact true, you just have to know what specifically he is referring to.

Isis was a virgin because Egyptian gods could never be deflowered, for example. Every one of the arguments in this debunk are the same.

[mainsqueeze1977]

If Egyptian gods cannot be deflowered, the epithet virgin becomes meaningless for them. Isis conceives Horus by having sex (!!!) with Osiris reassembled corpse. That might be miraculous but hardly the same as Mary conceiving Jesus without having had sex. Sex or no sex is the issue, not whether the hymen is torn.

[WHollabaugh]

mainsqueeze,

You have no clue what you're talking about.

The issue here is similarities between numerous religions(pagan, Christian, Muslim, whatever). You're arguing semantics to defend a film that argues semantics about a college film because it threatens your paradigm with truth and logic.

Not whether or not there was sex involved when Horus was conceived.... by the way, there wasn't, Osiris was dead, Isis had to take his essence with a spell.

[mainsqueeze1977]

I have no clue? I am sorry that you are that gullible to believe everything that dishonest Zeitgeist film proclaimed. The fact remains that there might be some parallels but Isis - Mary is not one as Isis clearly had sex (albeit with a dead husband-brother augmented by an articificial penis) and conceived Horus. Yes, that is magical, supernatural but it is not a virgin conception at all, which is precisely about whether sex was involved.

[WHollabaugh]

Three years of extensive research on Zeitgeist and all the debunk films for numerous college projects have given me the knowledge I have on this subject.

I'm sorry that you want to think you know more about this subject than I do, but the truth is the exact opposite. I have researched the claims in both films and the only falsities I have found are in the debunks, not the Zeitgeist films.

You are the gullible one.

[WHollabaugh]

Dude, are you just fucking retarded? The subject is the similarities between mythologies including Christianity.

You're taking the po9sition of a person who assumes that Christianity is true or that there was ever such a person as Jesus.

In fact, there is absolutely no evidence (aside from the fictional book the Bible) that Jesus ever existed. There are forgeries, but no evidence. None, so you can stop your internal duologue.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Oh, now we have finally reached the pinnacle of your arguments. Personal insults! You can remain in your little world, where Zeitgeist is reliable and Mrs S is a scholar. I for my part take serious what actual historians have to say and none of these agree with your rants that do not even make sense.

[WHollabaugh]

No, you accept the bias oppinions of historians that you agree with and dismiss those that conflict with your pathetic, insignificant little paradigm. All historians are contridictory to one another, if you were half as knowlegable as me, you would understand this rather than defending one of the few remaining mythologies.

I contend that we are both Atheists, I simply believe in one less god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Who are these "historians ... that conflict ..."? There are none! No historian denies the historicity of Jesus and that's not because they agree on everything or are braindead but because of the evidence.

How do you know what I believe? I for my part won't bother commenting on your faith!

[WHollabaugh]

Also, McClinchey, we know Zeitgeist is true because he actually referenced his film with 26 well respected authoritative authors on the subject. These references were then checked by the professors of the college and Peter continues to explain his films assertions and has yet to waver on a single aspect of his film being anything less than 100% true.

26 References, only 5 of which were mentioned in the debunk and the claims made on these authors are slanderous and false.

[McClinchey09]

i didnt thunmbs down your comment i dont mind having an argument about stuff like this as long as personal attacks and insults about my grammer are left out lol.

[aek21gangsta]

@WHollabaugh ahahahahahaah

[52blades]

Can I have the names or works of those Mediterranean historians you mentioned? Also I'm not looking to get into an argument or anything. (not right now anyways)

[52blades]

In my experience Habermas is reliable and well respected. I have a separate collection of the classic translations of Greek antiquity and I don't see any problems in his work, also a large number of historical figures were not recorded by anyone during their lifetime yet we accept they existed. You mentioned some Mediterranean historians who went looking for Jesus. Could you point me to them and their works for my own edification?

[52blades]

voiceofreason, are you talking about a non-christian source that mentions Jesus as a historical man? If you are I can provide you with a number of them. Dr. Gary Habermas details 39-ancient sources documenting the life of Jesus in his book 'The verdict of History'. If you are talking about the quotes used in this film I recognized that most of them are sourced by the historian Mike Licona on a website called answeringinfidels in his article responses to Achraya. I hope this helps.

[p86rocks86]

Great video!

[UnknownFromHeaven]

the sun died on the cross and rise on 25 december? on supposed day of birth of Christ..zeitgeist is bullshit!

[BloodStainedLamb]

Wow... Does Dr. Swerdlow have a pet black bear? okay okay I'm just kidding. Great videos.