This video is intended for YouTubers of the Zeitgeist Movement

[decaturpolice]

Zeitgeist does a great service to the New World Order. This system of disinformation is becoming more frequent now that certain truths (like the 911 and Federal reserve stuff) are already well past their ability to control.

If the NWO are trying to get us to be Christians so bad so they can control us, why are the school systems they push so anti-Christian?

The way you dodged the specific points raised by "Zeigeist Refuted" has only added the video further credibility, good work

[ChelevSaRa]

Hey, notice how this video is dedicated to people who aren't you. It's not an attempt at refutation. I'm blocking your dumbass.

[m2frogger]

The movies have been refuted. DEAL WITH IT!

[ChelevSaRa]

Really? Who refuted them?

[m2frogger]

@ChelevSaRa Type in any video refuting them/creators of Zeitgeist. I have a video on my profile in my "activity" area. It explains how Jesus is not a copy of any of the deities that were mentioned. You can also check out "Zeitgeist exposed".

[ChelevSaRa]

The YouTube videos I've seen haven't refuted jack or shit. I agree, it would be foolish to claim he's a copy though. It's not like that. It's a simple game of telephone. Stories of tradition are handed down and around, and altered over time. There's considerable study into this field by anthropologists. It is pretty confirmable that Jesus falls into this. It's not wise to believe the charlatans on YouTube.

[m2frogger]

@ChelevSaRa But I can't believe he didn't exist. There's texts of his earthly existence before the Romans excepted the religion. In the 80's text's that went back to the time of Christ were found regarding Jesus...and they were both written by St. Peter, and Marry Magdolin. In the same decade John the baptists tomb was also discovered.

Second I'd rather believe the refuter's...they seem to know what their talking about. Conspiracy theorists just seem, to "scared" for me.

[ChelevSaRa]

There's texts supporting the hawk headed sky god, doesn't mean he existed. The fact that you'd "rather believe the refuter's" than acknowledge anthropologic/archaeologic evidence, that does scare me. And if that is a failing in man, that scares me too. As for the "conspiracy theorist" thing, last I checked the "refuters" thought I was part of a theosophic New World Order Plot. Have fun believing those guys.

[vistabet]

whybn the shades?

[PonguigPeopinn]

How long till we do zeitgeist movement irl?

I'm sick of waiting.

We don't need to get everyone, I think atleast 2 million people would support it.

[ChelevSaRa]

Zeitgeist III is scheduled to come out October 2010, and I believe this is the same film that Jacque Fresco is trying to get a major film director to help make the Zeitgeist movement more public. Once that happens we can get funding for highly educational theme parks that tourists can spend some time in, getting to better know the future system. This will help increase interest and awareness, and hopefully we can get the ball rolling within the next decade or two; sooner than later I hope :P

[ChelevSaRa]

One thing that Jacque says though is that people aren't going to go for this unless the system we're in collapses, which it basically is likely going to do within the next 4-8 years. With awareness raised of the Venus Project, people will have a place to turn when everything crumbles, and everyone will likely realize this is the best option. They don't get it now, but they will.

[ttwizted0swizzle0sti]

I just cant take you serious...You look stupid...Do you think you look cool with those sunglasses and hat? You look like you could eat corn through a fence with those teeth.......

[MrTvoreo]

i hate this anti-zeitgeist movement why?because the zeitgeist movement has NOTHING to do with the 1st zeitgeist movie?ITS ABOUT THE 2ND MOVIE THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION

[amazingblur]

zeitgeist shouldnt have fucked up their first movie then

[MrTvoreo]

he did fuck up the first movie then he realised that for a second movie to be succesful in getting its point across it had to factually sound.its called correcting a mistake geez every makes them in fairness it was his first movie very few people pull it off on their first attempt

[amazingblur]

I dont know about the other movies, they look interesting, I will check them out sometime because they seem to tackle REAL issues. but I think there should be a "zeitgeist apology" or more or less a confession of the lack of integrity of the first zeitgeist before I would jump to see the other zeitgeists. I will see them at some point, but the first one was really ignorant i think so Im in no rush to watch another full length doc from zeitgeist

[MrTvoreo]

well joseph did say hes moved away from the 911 movement.on religion there is some small reiterations on religion but hes more critical of organized religion than someone having personal beliefs.anyway most Zeitgest Addendum fans are religious but also disregard the 1st movie

[amazingblur]

zeitgeists sources are bullshit, and why not mention anything about the other sources. if any of these sources references any sources, that's definitely less bullshit than zeitgeist.

That didn't cover anything but refuted only 4 sources that possibly may have sources for their own that may be relevent. I'd have to check it out to know for sure. As for the other sources, there only has to be one source with all of the facts and sources for those facts to be legit. Zeitgeist doesn't have this.

[ChelevSaRa]

I keep getting these kind of comments. It's apparent people missed the point of this video. It's not intended as a refutation. That comes later. The point of this video was simply to inform other members of the movement that there's a new "refutation" video, I make fun of it a bit, then ask them not to do anything that isn't necessary. You are not the target audience - if the title wasn't a blatant in your face giveaway of that...

[amazingblur]

of you watched that refuted video, you would understand that zeitgeist is a faulty movement, supported by a handful of sources that are not only lacking any credibility but are mostly associated with the occult and illuminate. are you aware?

[ChelevSaRa]

Troll. Get lost.

[amazingblur]

real intelligent

[SirianKings]

Associated with "occult" and "Illuminati"?

There's your ignorance.

[niinja2]

the only point of refutation he made was when he listed 5 people, wiggled his fingers and said we know they were bullshit....

i would really like to know how he explains this.

[shawn91210]

I just wasted all that time to hear you laugh and say that they have bad sources... as if anyones sources in these arguments are worth a damn.. way to go

[monkeygoatchicken]

at the end he says "that covers that." what did he cover? nothing was actually said during the entire video. i watched it a second time, no points of any kind were made. he just pretended to laugh cause he didn't have any kind of information to give and he needed to fill up time.

[ChelevSaRa]

Did you misunderstand the point of this video possibly?

[zetsway5000]

Its funny how he attacks the sources because he cant attack the debunking.

[dumalucky]

I love this guy.. hes on the ball

[punkerboy2007]

The420 again i'm telling u:interpretation of scriptures?!?! LOL that means anyone is allowed and able to come to any conclusions he/she wants about scriptures...it's about mythology everything why not?it is simbolic so on so forth..why not?! if according to you everyone is allowed to have his/her own oppinion about scriptures..and once u don't have to submitt to any Church Father's authority!!!

it's quite amuzing- the manner you manage to contradict yourselves poor christian mindless drones..

[punkerboy2007]

"Claims of historicity is supported fairly well by many secular scholars, despite them not being a christian" then you seem to rely for instance on jewish scholars who deny and keep denying Christ's divinity claiming he was nothing than a liar a false Messiah etc; don't u think that in this case is pathetic for u or any other devoted christian to rely on what jewish scholars claim?or on atheists scholars who didn't live in the biblical times of Jesus?

[The420shredhead]

DUDE.. If we didn't have the approval of other kinda of scholars, for at least the historicity of Jesus we would have less of a case. Its good, because not only "believing Christians" see Jesus as a historical figure.. Wow.

[punkerboy2007]

LOL; u're so informed; do u know what John Marco Allegro said in his books about historical Jesus and jesus the myth?or do u think u are able to dismiss his work just because some mainstream "scholars" said so?

[punkerboy2007]

or he didn't because he didn't know how to write ?!?!or such eye witnesses statements are enough for you?!?!LOL.. christian apology always looks so childish [and BTW I'm NOT an atheist]u always manage to contradict ur own assumptions you CAN'T agree even on jesus birth date but u keep.. arguing.. just for the sake of bible political corectness. utterly ridiculous!!!!!! "many scholars admit.....]WHO? those who lived during jesus biblical times dozens or hundreds of years later?

[SirianKings]

The biblical creation tale is pure dog shit. To buy into that sort of bullshit, you are basically saying that we are all product of Adam & Eve's kids practicing incest over many generations. (Although, it should answer why Bible-thumpers practice inbreeding.)

[punkerboy2007]

yes Sirian and just think about when it comes about Cain after the murdering of his brother Cain's wife sudden;y appear from nowwhere!!!!!!!not even from his rib just like Eve from Adam's rib!!!!!

[The420shredhead]

Its at this point you can either accept Christianity, or not and maintain whatever belief you wish instead. We both walk away happy, you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink. But stop this non historicity foolishness.

[ChelevSaRa]

"stop this non historicity foolishness."

No.

It's not foolishness. Give me one example of credible evidence dating to the time Jesus allegedly lived.

[The420shredhead]

Its either one or the other, and why would the Christians, those who worship Jesus, not know more about him and his history than secular or atheistic people? Claims of historicity is supported fairly well by many secular scholars, despite them not being a christian. They deny Christ was divine, but a good teacher, or crazy. We Christians would then tell you "he didn't leave that door open for us to say he was a teacher, he claimed to be god".

[ChelevSaRa]

"why would the Christians, those who worship Jesus, not know more about him and his history than secular or atheistic people?"

Because secular/atheist people often actually study this stuff instead of just accepting it on faith, which religious people have been programmed to do, otherwise God will be angry with them. I've noticed I know more about what's actually in the Bible than most Christians I encounter. They don't read it.

[The420shredhead]

Oh yes, all atheists are much more informed about Christianity, they think. :)

[punkerboy2007]

not all atheists are so informed about Christianity but those who are informed are actually smarter than any christian; and BTW i'm not an atheist; and once u're so convinced why don't u try to persuade the jews that Christ was the Messiah? and of course u didn't answer is there any reliable flawless document written BY JESUS HIMSELF? or mainstream Bible and some scholars's oppinions [who actually never saw jesus] are enough for u as a supreme argument in an intelectual debate?

[The420shredhead]

Many scholars admit the historicity of Jesus, and maintain a secular worldview. However, some scholars deny the historicity of Jesus. They are secular people, or atheists seeing as how they are not Christian. Is it not then fair to say, that those scholars who denounce historicity are bias? Scholars for historicity are BOTH christian and secular, while non historicity has only secular/atheistic subscribers? Either that or all the secular scholars for historicity are liars.. lol

[ChelevSaRa]

Of course the Christians think Jesus existed. That's because they're the ones who are biased. The non Christians who just assume Jesus existed do so out of indoctrination into a society filled with Christians.

The people who are saying Jesus probably never existed are of that stance because they recognize that there's not one shred of credible evidence dating to the time Jesus allegedly lived.

[The420shredhead]

There are a lot of biblical and early extra-biblical sources for Jesus as a historical figure, you know them all. You've explained them all away. (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon etc) There's no arguing with a brick house. Good for you, those people as well. Have fun deciding what other parts of history you can dismiss by being skeptical of the historical evidence. This man existed in history, get on proving he wasn't god.

[punkerboy2007]

woow u're so informed; Ok bring precise quotes from their work;

btw did Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny The Younger witness Jesus resurection? how many witnesses actually saw Jesus during the 40 days he spent according to Bible between resurection and Rapture? u defined wrong actualy he was god AND MAN--double nature or perhaps are u an heretic?

can u bring any reliable trustworthy eye weitness accounts of his resurection apart from mainstream gospels?

[punkerboy2007]

u oftenly loose sight and deliberately skip the fact - there is NO SINGLE RELIABLE FLAWLESS DOCUMENT wich claims "I Jesus am writing this...etc etc"or just in order to avoid confusions misinterpretations in the future don't u think that such an omnipotent allmighty omniscient God [talking about the father yeap] wouldn't have been so careful to make his point crystal clear?!? or Jesus himself during his 40 days spent on earth after resurection couldn't have written such a statement?

[The420shredhead]

Contact of the cloth and a body could not have formed the specific kind of image on the shroud. The image was not just any old crucified body, that hypothesis is not possible. The naked eye only sees a negative of the image on the shroud. That's impossible to fake, forge or do in ancient times. And the fibrils of the cloth are individually colored, observable with electron microscope. You say christian apologist like its a bad thing!

[ChelevSaRa]

I say Christian apologists like it's a bad thing because I have yet to encounter one that is honest. For example the Shroud of Turin is not carbon dated to the 1st century. It's dated to around 1000 years after Jesus' death. And saying that the simple explanation is a resurrection doesn't make any sense because we'd have no way of knowing what would happen during a resurrection. And there's more scientific explanations than the one I already gave you. They all make more sense than zombie magic.

[The420shredhead]

The shroud is a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The shroud is a linen cloth measuring 4.6 x 1.1 meters corresponding to a standard measurement of 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits in use in Palestine during the first century. The image on the shroud is also a negative. So easy to fake eh? Would've been anybody, i admit. Anybody from the first century who suffered an identical crucifixion in every way to Jesus. Plus the image is negative.. hard to fake lol

[punkerboy2007]

there was a National Geographic documentary about the shroud from Turin [Torino]; scientists have proven-- it's a fake; what the fuck were u talking about?!?!

[The420shredhead]

SOAD sucks, go listen to some real metal.

[The420shredhead]

If you REALLY want to win this debate once and for all, go to your local university and get a bunch of Professors on film to endorse the content of Zietgiest. If none of them will do it, then the thing is a hoax plain and simple. Unless you wanna call professors liars, if you do then debate them I'm sure they will just crush you though, they being professional thinkers and all, you just being some kid. Do it if your not a liar.

[ChelevSaRa]

My local University? Umm... The nearest university isn't very local... Tell you what though, there's an entire scholarly encyclopedia published by the Oxford University Press, titled "The Egyptian Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion," with over 50 scholarly contributors, edited by Egyptologist Donald B Redford. I haven't read anywhere near the entire thing, but it definitely backs a lot of the Egyptian stuff. These "refuters" are just Christian apologist conspiracy theorists.

[The420shredhead]

The real debate you should be having with people is "Jesus was not divine, he was a teacher or a fool, but not god" Forgive me if I'm incorrect but you advocate for the non-historicity of Jesus? And you claim his story is pagan myth, repackaged?

[The420shredhead]

"There are aspects of the crucifixion narratives that stand up to historical scrutiny, as embodying historical fact rather than Christian theology. As one salient example: all of our accounts agree that Jesus was crucified on the order of the Roman governore Pontius Pilate." Bart D. Ehrman. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. Oxford University Press US, 2006. Pages 222-223. Non historicity is as dead as disco. you now have to prove he wasn't God, you must show him as a man in history, and not god.

[The420shredhead]

The shroud or Turin was looked at under electron microscope, it was made with we know as lasers. This is very good direct proof of Jesus being christ!! (or some OTHER unknown dude with lasers shooting out of every pore after resurrecting from the same type of crucifixion Jesus had, it even dates to first century, and has pollens from that part of the world in the fabric.) Either way, its not fake able even by modern science. But its great proof for Christianity, Akums Razor; that man is Jesus.

[ChelevSaRa]

The shroud of Turin? You just offered me the Christian apologist explanation - nothing scientific. A scientific explanation is that it was a chemical interaction, similar to photography, between the cloth of the shroud and the gas released by a decomposing body. And the body could have been anyone's.

[ChelevSaRa]

Based on one passage from Bart Ehrman? I was already well aware he thought Jesus was a historical figure. Most people have been indoctrinated into that their entire life, and haven't attempted to discredit it - scholar or otherwise. Scholars don't always agree with one another on every little detail. I could bring in historian Richard Carrier, who's currently writing a book, presenting a case for the non historicity of Jesus. "Non historicity" is nowhere near dead. It's just getting started.

[The420shredhead]

Dude, it sounds like what Kieth says because they have the same worldview. Its a dichotomy, the two sides (yours and his) are irreconcilable until one of the parties is refuted for good. However if the loosing side remains resiliently ignorant, then the victor can only watch his truth fall on deaf ears. Why in good senses, continue that wasted breath?

[Kulawendin]

I'm glad there are people who are refuting Zeitgeist, people should have the ability to hear both sides of the story and come up with their own conclusions.

[1cattfish]

Like who?

[MooseHeaddd]

I dont know what is or isnt. But just based on debates Chelev is an ape. He brings nothing to the table. This is just based on debates or rather rants. Whetther God exists or not. Which ever side Chelev decides to debate for, that side would lose. Whether for or against he couldnt win either side of the debate.

[ChelevSaRa]

What debates? I don't recall debating anyone.

But, yes, I am an ape.

[Hercules2345]

ChelevSaRa, you rock - thanks for pointing that the loser Elliott Nesch who created "ZEITGEIST REFUTED FINAL CUT" combined keith TRASH & chris wihtes BS and still only has 8 sources.

And, you're right - it's a total waste of time to post comments at any of their videos. They've chosen to be biased, bigoted xian extremists so the mountain of facts & evidence that prove them wrong are meaningless to them.

It's best to ignore them and keep pumping out videos proving them wrong - for others.

[1cattfish]

John also prooves that even if Zeitgeist is wrong (which it's not), Jesus is still a myth.

[ChelevSaRa]

Yep. In fact I would say The Bible really does a good job of debunking itself.

[1cattfish]

As well with these Zeitgeist "Debunkers".

[1cattfish]

Your right about being done with Keith, too. His new video on danieljliversLXXXIX prooves how low he's gotten.

[1cattfish]

Was getting into a comment arguement with Keith something I wasn't supposed to do? If so, sorry.

[ChelevSaRa]

Haha! It's okay to be a freethinker. I'm not the boss of you. You were forgiven before your argument ever started.

[Death4Note]

All due respect but I really dont think youre one to talk about sources when in your last video you cited the following sources that supported your view.

Richard Smith: some guy with a blog

PETE: anonymous blogger..

Malhon H.Smith: an ex-Catholic who spent his life working in electronics

Shawn Landis: writer from Suite 101 (no information on him)

John Armstrong: youtube atheist

Anne: a real archaeologist (only getting her first name, she could be anybody with a chip on her shoulder.

[ChelevSaRa]

Unfortunately freethinkers tend to lose their jobs when they mix their activism with it, so a lot of scholar freethinkers have to choose secret identities. I too have to do this because I work for a bunch of Mormons.

And yes, sometimes I use quick references, when not necessary to do otherwise. When I do that, I just want people to have stuff on hand they can refer to so they don't think I'm just making shit up. But the stuff that needs better sources comes with it.

[Death4Note]

"Unfortunately freethinkers tend to lose their jobs when they mix their activism with it, so a lot of scholar freethinkers have to choose secret identities. I too have to do this because I work for a bunch of Mormons." this sounds a lot like the Expelled movie by Stein which I think is grossly fabricated and untrue. Hugh Ross over at RTB and his team have not experienced any of the scenarios put forth in Expelled. Can I ask where you work?

[Hercules2345]

LMAO! I knew you'd attempt to apply your twisted version of the def. on the rest of us. Verifying facts & evidence, & being skeptical of unsubstantiated religious claims does not equal a fundy & never will no matter how much you wish it were the case. No amount of spinning on your part Death4Note is going to change that fact.

The difference is that we're open to VALID facts & evidence. A broad stroke accusation that we're all fundy's will not suffice.

Why'd you delete your comment?

[Death4Note]

The other comment was a double, I posted twice.

I'm perfectly open to "valid facts and evidence" and I can see why one would come to the conclusion that you have after watching and looking into a film like zeitgeist.  I'm always eager to read literature that supports "your view." but I have yet to be thoroughly convinced that "your view" is little more than a cult movement.

believe me when I tell you that I am very eager to read material from your guru Murdock. I've heard so much about her.

[Hercules2345]

I don't see a dbl post - you mentioned Dawkins, ChelevSaRa, myself making a broad stroke generalization that we were all fundy's.

Nor am I part of any "cult" - I've worked for years to help people get out of cults.

I've also known about Acharya's work since 1999 long before ZG ever came out.

Death4Note you are too quick with false assumptions. You've been wrong about everything thus far.

[Death4Note]

-you don't see a double post because I deleted it. why is this an issue?

-according to the 3rd dictionary definition in the link you supplied, Dawkins, Chelev and yourself are fundamentalists of your conspiracies and believes.

-you "working for years to help people get out of cults" sounds a lot like fundamentalist evangelism.

-why does it matter that you've known about AS work long before ZG?

-whether my assumptions are true or false there is no way of proving it here on this medium.

[ChelevSaRa]

I'm fundamentalist of my conspiracies? What do you mean by that?

[Hercules2345]

We already covered why your # 3 application is wrong, we're past that. Your use of "fundamentalist" has been inaccurate everytime thus far - you don't seem to understand the term. I suppose it's an inconvenience to your endless false assumptions & accusations. An accurate use of the word would ruin your entire broad stroke premise that we're all fundy's since we are more interested in VALID facts & evidence.

Nowhere does it say that common sense & reliance upon VALID facts & evidence is fundy

[Hercules2345]

Death4Note "why does it matter that you've known about AS work long before ZG?"

Just because one is familiar with the works of Acharya doesn't mean it has anything to do with ZG in any way whatsoever. Her work has nothing to do with parts 2 or 3, nor ZG Addendum. That's another fallacy in your logic here.

Again, you make an endless stream of false assumptions & accusations. It's as if you just can't help it or aren't concerned about any accuracy whatsoever. Typical trait of fundy theists.

[ChelevSaRa]

And John Armstrong considers himself a deist, though he would say he is atheist in regard to Yahweh. Just so you know. I don't want people to be getting the wrong impression about John, who is a specialist in this field of study.

[Death4Note]

What you will study does Armstrong specialize in?

[ChelevSaRa]

He studies the Bible, the criticisms of it, and the rebuttals of Christian apologists, as well as historical documents. The guy knows what he's doing.

[Death4Note]

On what basis do you believe that John Armstrong knows what he's doing or is qualified to discuss the subjects he discusses?

[ChelevSaRa]

If you read the Bible that makes you qualified to discuss it. If you research both sides that makes you qualified to discuss both sides. If you research the history of it that makes you qualified to discuss the history of it.

[Death4Note]

Should a man who owns a mint condition Rolls-Royce trust an experienced professionally trained Rolls-Royce mechanic with a garage and all the appropriate specialized tools to fix his car? Or should he call his best friends son who has read some books and watched some videos about Rolls-Royces to work on his car using his dads tools?

[Death4Note]

(cont.)

If you opted for the experienced professionally trained mechanic I wonder why you would trust a youtube Deist with no credentials on a subject that you yourself may be uneducated in? Unless of course its just that you like what hes saying because it conforms to your worldview which I can completely understand, but this is being intellectually unfair to yourself.

[ChelevSaRa]

Flawed analogy. We're not talking about a mechanic, we're talking about research. And it's not about trust. I'm not saying you should trust John Armstrong. I'm saying he's not a bad source for me to refer to for other sources. People should do their own research. My arguments and description box sources give them starting points.

[Death4Note]

I think the analogy suits quite well considered the massive amount of disciplines that need to be taken into consideration when studying ancient texts and biblical writings. Understanding Ancient near East culture, Philosophy of Religion, Systematic Theology, Hermeneutics, and biblical languages and archaeology are just a few subjects that need to be understood before boldly stating that Jesus never existed. People go to school for years to learn these subjects. Much longer than mechanics.

[Death4Note]

(cont.)

Im totally cool with you wanting to use someone like John Armstrong as a source for your videos Im just saying the guy has no credentials to speak of and he seems to ignore scholarly work. My point is that its ridiculous for you to criticize someone elses sources and researchers when your own are just as suspect. Its funny, after seeing both sides of the debate in various forms it seems one side is always considering the other ignorant.

[Hercules2345]

Good point Death4Note but I think you got it backwards. Folks should learn "Ancient near East culture, Philosophy of Religion, Systematic Theology, Hermeneutics, and biblical languages and archaeology" before they boldly claim that Jesus EXISTED.

BTW, Acharya S knows ALL of those subjects & more quite well. So, I guess she is in a position to claim Jesus is a myth according to your reasoning here.

[Death4Note]

Wow... People still drop her name? She is the one who misrepresented all that information in Zeitgeist. Based on the clear mistakes in her "work" I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. No offense intended. Maybe her newer books are better. After reading Mike Licona's Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy and looking up the facts for myself I wrote her off as a fanatic.

kind regards

[Hercules2345]

LOL, "Licona" the xian fundy who believes Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the blind & sick, raised the dead, was crucified on a cross and resurrected 3 days later, soon to return? LMAO!

He was refuted long ago truthbeknown. com/licona. htm

Look for Edwin Bryant's comments here in red

forums. truthbeknown. com/viewtopic. php?t=1149&start=0

Licona wasn't honest

[Death4Note]

Is Murdoch the only "scholar"  today who testifies that Jesus never existed?

[ChelevSaRa]

There's a lot of scholars who are at the very least skeptical about it. Saying definitively that there was no historical Jesus is rare. Most tend to keep silent about it, as they are often met with ridicule or job loss. Bob Price, Richard Carrier, Michael Shermer, Cristopher Hitchins, and Tim Callahan are all examples of living scholars who are at least quite skeptical about it.

[Death4Note]

Thanks Chelev.

[Hercules2345]

LOL, view parts 1 & 2 of the video "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" And, "There's lots of evidence for Jesus!" all by spaceagebachelor.

Then read the book which is mostly a Christian biblical scholar bibliography admitting there's no valid evidence for Jesus in their own words.

[Death4Note]

Well, I giggled my way through the videos you suggested I watch. Between the ways Murdoch quote mines the Bible to make Jesus look evil (which the exact tactics that Muslims use to prove Jesus isnt God) and how she misrepresents the quote from FF Bruce and Merrill C. Tennet. The videos were little more than an infomercial filled with propaganda for her book.

[Death4Note]

(cont. 1)

In fact, if she had read Tennets book that she quoted from she would realize that after that quote Tennet goes into detail about how there is evidence for Jesus existence through the various historians and commentators of whom Im sure you are familiar with. And I have not read A Marginal Jew by John P. Meier but I can imagine that she is taking his quote out of context as well for the simple reasons that its already clear she does this

[Death4Note]

(cont. 2)

and that A Marginal Jew was a book written to employ tools of historical critical research to delineate who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended. Using Murdochs logic one could conspire that many people in history did not exist. One could conclude that Confucius never existed if his Analects are disallowed as historical proof but no one does that because people dont have a problem with Confucius.

[Hercules2345]

LOL Your comments are a compliment coming from a fundy. Yeah, Murdock spills much ink discussing how bib. scholars admit there's no valid evidence for Jesus, then go on to make those bold claims w/o evidence - xians have a tendency to ignore their admissions & glue onto the baseless bold claims that can't be substantiated. Your claim that "she is taking quotes out of context" will not suffice when you actually read the book LMAO!

[Death4Note]

Well, you will be happy to know that I have just ordered a copy of "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ" through Amazon. I'm kind of bummed I had to spend $29 for a 283 page softcover book and I found it amusing that all of the major bookstores in my city could not even find the book in their computers but regardless, I have one on the way. I wouldn't want to be a biased fundamentalist who only reads works that agree with my worldview (which I am not).

[Death4Note]

(cont.)

that being said, I certainly don't mind you calling me a Christian fundamentalist. Just as I would only hope that you would consider yourself a fundamentalist. Everyone is a fundamentalist of something so in my opinion using the word as a "insult" isn't insulting and shouldn't be considered as such.

[Hercules2345]

Bookstores don't normally stock print on demand (POD) books.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

dictionary. reference. com /browse/fundamentalist

Nope according to the definition of fundamentalist I don't fit the description at all - not even close.

I hope you enjoy & get much out of WWJ. Then read "Christ in Egypt"

[Death4Note]

I would put you in the third definition of the word fundamentalism provided in your link.

"3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives."

For example, Hercules2345 and Chelev adhere strictly to the ideas presented in the movie Zeitgeist. Both of them dogmatically promote the ideas held in the film and therefore are fundamentalists of the Zeitgeist Movement.

[Death4Note]

(cont.)

or... Richard Dawkins fundamentally believe there is no God and strictly adheres to the idea that the Big Bang theory and biological evolution can account for all that exists today. Dawkins writes many books and does many talks (but fears debates) promoting his atheistic/naturalistic view dogmatically. Therefore Dawkins is a fundamentalist when it comes to atheism and naturalism.

[Death4Note]

If you actually took the time to watch the videos, instead of just skipping to the 12th, you would discover that many sources are cited throughout each video which support the refutation (in my opinion quite well). it seems that many of the arguments you use in your videos are very much based off the authors described in Eliot's 9th 10th and 11th videos.

If you are a spokesperson for the truthfulness of Zeitgeist I would suggest watching these videos.

cheers

[ChelevSaRa]

That's true. There was stuff cited throughout the video. I was being a dick.

[Gungfuwarrior]

I love the first Stone Sour album! The second one...meh.

[Gungfuwarrior]

Or is that off of the 3rd Slipknot, I forget. Both are great albums.

[1cattfish]

Please, to all you Zeitgeist Debunked supporters, come on my channel and take my Zeitgeist Debunked Challenge.

[jehovasinz]

A lot of our toll roads and ports are owned by other countries.

[spaceagebachelor]

Love your tags!

[dudekin]

LOL, I agree with you completely.

Ah, you like the Knot?! I was able to see them for the first time on June 13th at Download, they're incredible, man.

[ChelevSaRa]

Yeah, that shit's intense. Love it!

[starfireucsd]

As much as I find those people annoying, I feel that we put that hostile feeling aside at least til we defeat those NWO bastards.

[utukkuxul]

Unfortunately they wouldn't allow it since they consider us to be NWO bastards.

[GodWantsBlood]

To be honest, zeitgeist was pretty full of shit. The thing about the federal reserve taking all the tax money for themselves doesnt make sense. If they took all the money (and MORE than they "loaned" out) then how is the government using tax money on public projects/roads/etc.

The christianity thing can't really be backed up either, but it doesn't really need to, since even without zeitgeist christianity is a fucking joke.

[dudekin]

The money on roads etc comes from petrol taxes etc.

[ChelevSaRa]

"even without zeitgeist christianity is a fucking joke. "

I agree with you there!

[utukkuxul]

Income taxes go solely to the Fed. Roads, schools, etc are paid for by tolls, tickets, taxes on gas(as stated by dudekin), sales tax, etc. There are plenty of taxes other than income taxes that are used to fund those other things.

[GodWantsBlood]

hmm that certainly sparks my interest. I guess I'll have to do some research into how the US income tax works/where it goes to/etc.

I'm also interested to see if we have a similar system here in Canada, since this is the first year I have to pay my income taxes, and I wanna know where my money is going. :(

[dudekin]

Income tax is used to pay off the Governments interest. That's all there is to it, really.

[utukkuxul]

If you went to irs d0t g0v, on their "about us" page, it stated specifically that the income tax was voted unconstitutional more than once. They've made that page a little harder to find now, and re-written it to sound a little 'nicer,' but it still says it, more or less.

[GodWantsBlood]

ah, those sneaky bastards..

And yea, I was just skeptical about the IRS and stuff based on what a already knew, since a video on the internet isn't always the best source of info. That IRS agent saying that he hasn't payed his taxes since he found out the truth about income taxes did kind of spark my interest though. I'm definitely gonna look into this.