The first part of the following movie states that the Judeo Christian Religions were copied directly off egyptian, and early Sun worshipping cults.
Is what this movie saying true or complete bollocks ?

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

I'm no expert on this topic, but I've heard that Christianity absorbed many ideas from the pagan religions that came before it. Rather than trying to make the pagans quit celebrating their old holidays, they kept them and just gave them Christian names. That's how we ended up with things like the Christmas tree and the easter bunny. I mean, what possible connection does a bunny delivering chocolate eggs have to Christ's cruxifiction and rebirth?

In a way, yes.

Judaism is, for all practical purposes, a revised sun-worship. The Hebrew god Yahweh was based off the Egyptian cult of the sun-god Aten and Babylonian sun deities. Eventually, this henotheism developed into monotheism, and the god previously associated with the sun was associated with All.

Christianity was based on Judaism, but with an extra fold of hero-worship or saviour-worship, which is the cult of Jesus. The early Christian church was, really, a schismatic personality cult within Judaism, and it was by far not the only one. It was, however, the most successful, because it adapted foreign ideas and beliefs into its own belief system.

Judaism is, for all practical purposes, a revised sun-worship. The Hebrew god Yahweh was based off the Egyptian cult of the sun-god Aten and Babylonian sun deities.
Please present your evidence considering Egyptian god Aten.

with an extra fold of hero-worship or saviour-worship, which is the cult of Jesus.
Wrong. Maybe it is based on it now, but it wasn't based for the first three centuries. Read Thomas gospel for example.

The early Christian church
There was no one early Christian church/organisation. The most known division is between traditionalists (proto-catholics) and gnostics.
But there were also local variations, like the coptic church in Egypt.

Wrong. Maybe it is based on it now, but it wasn't based for the first three centuries. Read Thomas gospel for example.

Was the Thomas gospel every widely accepted?

When the Christian religion was made "official" by the Roman empire, the Romans had a basic main problem. 40% of people were Christian, another 40% were followers of Mythra, and the another 20% were "pagans", like Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
So what they did was adapt certain traditions like Christmas (Mythras birthday), or the solar disc (Egyptian), and merged all into one big religion, the Roman Christianity. This was done so people from all religions and beliefs can adapt to Christianity more easily.

Was the Thomas gospel every widely accepted?
Sorry, no library cards have survived :D but Thomas gospel was known in Greece, Rome and Egypt.



When this Coptic version of the complete text of Thomas was found, scholars realized that three separate Greek portions of it had already been discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, in 1898. The manuscripts bearing the Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (P. Oxy. I 1; IV 654; IV 655) have been dated to about AD 200, and the manuscript of the Coptic version to about 340. Although the Coptic version is not quite identical to any of the Greek fragments, it is believed that the Coptic version was translated from an earlier Greek version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

i was blown away by this movie, and as well am very interested in learning more about the validity of the claims. does anyone have any links or anything to help point me in the right direction?

complete bollocks. theres a giant gray area in time between where moses walked the land and where egyptian mythology came about. i quit going to church because of this same controversy, but its nothing.

The human psyche is a very complex thing, it's altogether too simple for it to find patterns in things that aren't there. Quite frankly the whole aspect to religion brought about by the Zeitgeist movie is only there to do one thing, create controversy with those that find controversy in it.

I personally found no collation with any of it, Religion to me has been dead in the water for centuries however we still have the blind blindly following people that manipulate, control and dominate them. (Which is what that movie really gets at towards the end, religion was just the tip of the iceberg to their 'String Theory', which incidentally is not to be confused with 'Quantum String Theory'.)

The first part of the following movie states that the Judeo Christian Religions were copied directly off egyptian, and early Sun worshipping cults.
Is what this movie saying true or complete bollocks ?

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some Egyptian influence. Religions can evolve like living things do.

I'm not sure that there is any worth talking about religion that is not somehow influenced from prior beliefs.

I have done quite a bit of reading up on the claims from the religion portion of the Zeitgeist movie and the claims do hold up.

Check out the reference page at the movies website. They do a pretty good job of providing sources to back up their claims. After a bunch of further investigation into this ... I can only conclude that they barely scratched the surface of the matter. Jesus was taken from many religions and the ancient Egyptian myths are the primary foundation for the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths. I think they left that part out in the movie. All three religions are tied to Egyptian mythology. That makes perfect sense when you see that the Hebrew people fled Egypt during the Exodus. They did not leave their religions behind when they moved. They took their religions with them and made them their own.

the ancient Egyptian myths are the primary foundation for the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths
Oh, come on, why forget the Babylonian, Mesopotamic myths? They are much closer to various stories in the old testament than anything else in Egyptian myths, which is quite natural them being middle eastern and in the same territory.

In the Ancient (old) world there were three great civilizations/empires - Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia,
as well as the fourth one for a short while - The Land of the Hittites. The first three were the crossroads of culture, and they influenced everything greatly.

Christians and Muslims say Amen because of Egyptian myth.
Amun and Amen are the same thing.

During the 18th Dynasty reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), a single god named Aten was introduced. That would probably be the reason people still use the word Amen in prayers.

The Ankh is the cross.

Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph signifying "life," a cross surmounted by a loop and known in Latin as a crux ansata (ansate, or handle-shaped, cross). It is found in ancient tomb inscriptions, including those of the king Tutankhamen, and gods and pharaohs are often depicted holding it. The ankh forms part of hieroglyphs for such concepts as health and happiness. The form of the symbol suggests perhaps a sandal strap as its original meaning, though it has been seen as representing a magical knot. As a cross, it has been extensively used in the symbolism of the Coptic Christian church -- Copyright 1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Here is the definition from the Guinness Encyclopedia of Signs and Symbols, p. 91. -
Ankh the most valued symbol of the ancient Egyptians, also known as crux aitsata, or the 'ansate' or 'handled cross'. It combines two symbols, the tau cross - 'life', and the circle - 'eternity', thus together 'immortality', and also the male and female symbols of the two principal Egyptian deities Osiris and Isis, thus the union of heaven and earth. In hieroglyphic writing, it stands for 'life' or 'living', and forms part of words such as 'health' and 'happiness'. Egyptians wore the ankh as an amulet to prolong life on earth, and were buried with it to ensure their 'life to come' in the afterworld; belief in the ankh's power was reinforced by its resemblance to a key which would unlock the gates of death. This 'key' symbol was also carved on canal walls on the Nile, in the belief that its presence would control the flow of water and so avoid both floods and drought. The ankh was adopted by the early Coptic Christians of Egypt who also used it on their monuments to symbolize life after death. In more recent times, the ankh has been used by witches in spells and rituals involving divination, fertility and health.

The Egyptians did borrow from many cultures ... but Judeo-Christian ideas came from Egypt. The Greeks and Romans attributed their knowledge to the Egyptians. I know that the Egyptians were not the first ... they were just the ones that held is directly before Judaism or Christianity sprung up.

Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia on Egypt. They admit that there was a sect of Christianity in Egypt that pre-dates their own. It is funny to watch the way that they denounce things as being untrue ... when you know damn good and well that they are. I love reading it as a source to get a laugh. Remember - the Catholics said the world was flat when all the evidence said it was round. They are notorious liars.


1. Early Christianity in Egypt

We have no direct evidence of Christianity having existed in Egypt until Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) when it had already spread over the land. What we know of the Church of Egypt before that time is exclusively through inferences or unconfirmed traditions preserved principally by Eusebius (see below). Thus we may infer the existence of Christianity in Egypt during the second century from the fact that under Trajan a Greek version of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" was being circulated there (Duchesne, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, I, 126). We know that this gospel was the book of the Judeo-Christians. Its very name points to the existence at the same date of another Christian community, recruited from among the Gentiles. This, presumably, followed another Gospel which Clement of Alexandria calls "the Gospel According to the Egyptians". (On the Gospel of the Egyptians, see Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, I, 1, pp. 612-622; on the Gospel of the Hebrews, ibid., pp. 631-49).


Again, organized Christianity at an early date in Egypt is, indirectly at least, attested by the activity of the Gnostic schools in that country in the third and fourth decades of the second century. Eusebius is authority that "Basilides the heresiarch", founder of one of these schools, came to prominence in the year 134. Other Egyptian founders of such schools, Valentinus and Carpocrates, belong to the same period. Valentinus had already moved to Rome in 140, under the pontificate of Pope Hyginus (Irenæus, Adv. Hær., III, iv, 3), after having preached his doctrines in Egypt, his native country.As Duchesne (op. cit., I, 331) well remarks, one cannot believe that these heretical manifestations represented all the Alexandrine Christianity. These schools, precisely because they are nothing but schools, suppose a Church, "the Great Church", as Celsus calls it; such aberration, precisely because labelled with their authors' names, testify to the existence of the orthodox tradition in the country where they originated. This tradition, from which heresies of such a power of diffusion could separate themselves without putting its very existence in jeopardy, must have been endowed with a vitality which cannot be accounted for without at least half a century of normal growth and organization under the guidance strong and vigilant bishops. We may, therefore, safely conclude as that as early as the middle decades of the first century there was in Alexandria, and probably in the neighboring nomes, or provinces, Christian communities consisting principally of Hellenistic Jews and of those pious men (phoboumenoi ton Theon) who had embraced the tenets and practices of Judaism without becoming regular proselytes. These communities must have had some numerical importance, for on the one hand the Jews were exceedingly numerous (over one million) in Egypt, and particularly in Alexandria, where they constituted two-fifths of the whole population; and on the other hand the philosophical eclecticism that generally prevailed in Alexandria at that time co-operated in favour of Christian ideas with the great doctrinal tolerance then obtaining throughout Judaism, to the extent, indeed, as Duchesne tersely puts it, that one might think like Philo or like Akiba, believe in the resurrection of the flesh or in its final annihilation, expect the Messias or ridicule that hope, philosophize like Ecclesiastes or like the Wisdom of Solomon (op. cit., I, 122). Along with this Judaizing church, whose hopes and expectations were centered in Jerusalem and the Temple, who accepted Christianity and yet continued to observe the Law, there was another Church, decidedly Gentile -- we might say, Christian -- in its character and aspirations, as well as in its practices. It is difficult to surmise what the relations of those two churches to one another were in their details. It is very probable that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus, by putting an end to the hopes of many among the judaizing Church, brought them over to the Great Church, which henceforth gained rapidly in numbers and prestige and soon became the only orthodox Christian Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/05329b.htm

Cross is a sacred symbol in many cultures and by disregarding the Babylonian mythology you're making a tragic error.
Amen comes from the word "Let it be so".
I don't have the time for this, but I urge readers to cross check the facts implied by LuckyNumbers, because he's exaggerating them.
The Coptic church in Egypt is indeed an old one.

i was blown away by this movie, and as well am very interested in learning more about the validity of the claims. does anyone have any links or anything to help point me in the right direction?

I don't have links , but Popular mechanics does point out some of their points about the 11th of September could very well be false.
The third part of the movie, according to Read Only, Isn't true because there is oversight, and the Federal Reserve has its own senate comittee.

I'd say the religious part of the movie was largely supported by evidence, though some of the conclusions are obviously controversial. The 9/11 part is rubbish. I think the new world order part has some truth to it but covered in a lot of exaggeration and paranoia. Overall, it's a good primer to start looking into the subjects in more detail.

I can't really answer the question exactly, but I think that would be interesting to mention that the religious-related part of the movie is all or most copied (literally) from "the god that wasn't there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn't_There)", and the rest is an assemblage of multiple conspiracy theories.

Some links debunking the thing, specially the conspiracy parts:

http://www.skepchick.org/skepticsguide/viewtopic.php?t=3648

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85264

http://guelphskeptics.org/?p=18



Even the parts ripped off from TGWWT aren't free of cricitcs between the skeptics, anyway, and the author himself has admitted some mistakes. (Can find it through the links)

The first part of the following movie states that the Judeo Christian Religions were copied directly off egyptian, and early Sun worshipping cults.
Is what this movie saying true or complete bollocks ?



i don't know about all of it, but i think the revised dates of holidays and things are true.

The movie is entirely a work of fiction, i say entirely but i only watched about 10-15 minutes of it. It is all rehashed crap anyway so i know what it is about just from reading forum posts on it. For me sitting there listening to this ominous voice telling me not to believe anything i heard except for the lies they are telling me is really insulting.

Also, i know the second part is about 911 and you really have to deny reality to follow along with the claims made.

Someone got their hands on expensive graphics software and made a fairy tale. And really that about sums it all up.

The religious claims of zeitgeist are basically true, though most Christian scholars would argue that the transmission of ideas was the other way around - that Early Christianity (spreading across the Mediterranean like wildfire, and thus threatening the hegemony of other religious cults of like nature i.e. Isis and Mithras) actually was the progenitor of such practices as Baptism and the Eucharist (among many others) - in turn transmitting them to the preexisting cults.

I tend to disagree with this interpretation of the mimetic transmission among Early Christianity and other cults, but I think it is right to a certain extent. It is the nature of religious institutions that they not only are molded from without (much to the chagrin of the supposedly unwavering dogmas like Catholicism (what ever happened to limbo?) and Mormonism (an openly racist institution until the mid 1970's)), but they also shape and transmit ideas to and through their cultural context. So it seems reasonable that though Early Christianity was in large part shaped by preexisting near-eastern cults, it also, as a new religious force in the world, shaped them through its own devices.

And things like the cross were not entirely ripoffs from other cults (like the ankh of Isis). The cross was a tool of execution - the early Christian adoption of such a symbol would have been really strange, akin to some religious cult today adopting the electric chair, or lethal injection syringe as their symbol.

So though the cross did exist in great abundance as a religious symbol among near eastern religions and cults, it had context outside of those - the Christians didn't just totally rip it off of the Isis folks.

I'm not sure how this pertains to the argument, but you all might be interested that most of the crosses upon which people were crucified weren't necessarily the "cross shape" as we picture it today. Many were shaped more like "X" - and most were shaped more like "+", with the cross-bar halfway up the pole, instead of like "t", with the cross bar more towards the top..."the more you know!"

Also recall that the supposed Saint Peter was crucified upside down (i'd think this would be a better way to go, as you'd probably pass out in like 30 minutes from all the blood rushing to your brain). Most people who were crucified hung up there for a really long time (sometimes even days). You would usually die from asphyxiation, after your arms had given out and you could no longer hold yourself up. Your shoulders would slump down and you wouldn't be able to breathe.

I think the movie confuses the fact that there are similarities between Judaic religious practices and myths and Egyptian ones as evidence of causation. There is correlation between them, and the Egyptian ones are older, but correlation doesn't equal causation.

In fact, as another poster noted, there is a great deal more correlation between Jewish mythology and Sumerian/Babylonian mythology.

In fact there is *EVEN* more between Jewish mythology and Canaanite/Ugaritic mythology that existed before it. The Ugaritic pantheon even had as their highest god "El" the creator (compared to the Jewish name for God "El" used in some books of the Bible), and a separate god "Yahweh", one of the seventy sons of El (compare to the *other* Jewish name for god "Yahweh" used in other books of the Bible).

The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls (but not the Masoretic text) both state Deuteronomy 32:8 as:


When the Most High (El) gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. For Yahweh's portion is His people, Jacob the line of His inheritance

The words "sons of El" are somewhat disputed as some think of them as "angels of God" rather than taking them literally (the Masoretic text renders the words as "sons of Israel"). The passage has long been linked with "Table of Nations" in Genesis (where God split up the Earth into seventy nations).

Note that, if you assume a Ugaritic root to the references, it all makes a lot of sense, as the Ugaritic El also divided the world into seventy nations--one for each of his sons, including Yahweh.

See here (http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/05-Deuteronomy/Text/Articles/Heiser-Deut32-BS.htm) for a more expert discussion of the same point.

It seems very likely that the noted similarities between Egyptian religion and Jewish religion arose because all the cultures in the region were cross-pollinating all the time. The rise of Judaism was not some linear march from an Egyptian starting point. It was a hodgepodge of ideas taken from many sources in the region that eventually evolved into the Canaanite religions (of which Ugaritic was one), and then the Canaanites transitioned into Judaism and began to think of themselves as a separate group from the other Canaanites around them.

The Ugaritic pantheon even had as their highest god "El" the creator (compared to the Jewish name for God "El" used in some books of the Bible). . . .Elohim, which also occurs, is simply the plural of eloh which comes from the same proto-Semitic root as Arabic allah. Is El another form of eloh?
. . . .and then the Canaanites transitioned into Judaism and began to think of themselves as a separate group from the other Canaanites around them.Now DNA analysis suggests that the Canaanites who chose not to adopt Judaism were the ancestors of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are as closely related to the Jews and the Lebanese, if not more so, than they are to the Arabs.

There is some truth in the movie. But the truth is not so simple.

Elohim, which also occurs, is simply the plural of eloh which comes from the same proto-Semitic root as Arabic allah. Is El another form of eloh?

My Hebrew etymology is not all that it could be, but a few sources, at least suggest that eloah is related to "El." Most are not well sourced though. To cite two:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm ("Elohim has been explained as a plural form of Eloah or as plural derivative of El.")

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4744 ("[B]y dialetic transference, namely phonetic substitution Il/Ilu become[s] El/Eloah in the general punic vocabulary...")

That makes selse to me, as it explains the number of proper names that refer to God (Michael ("who is like God"), Gabriel ("Man of God"), Israel ("He who strives with God"), Daniel ("God is my judge"), etc.).

The movie is entirely a work of fiction, i say entirely but i only watched about 10-15 minutes of it. It is all rehashed crap anyway so i know what it is about just from reading forum posts on it. For me sitting there listening to this ominous voice telling me not to believe anything i heard except for the lies they are telling me is really insulting.

Also, i know the second part is about 911 and you really have to deny reality to follow along with the claims made.

Someone got their hands on expensive graphics software and made a fairy tale. And really that about sums it all up.

I think it is very ignorant for you to say that they got some graphic software and made fairytales. The firefighters and people who worked for the WTC that mentioned an explosion before the planes hit, they were in on it to, right??? Crazy as it may seem and I understand that none of want to beleive that our own gov't is capable of such terror but I feel we are trained to thing we cannot do anything about it. With everyone thinking like this, the gov't can get away with murder!!!!!! Just to add fuel to the fire....the patriot act, not in so many words, but go speak out in public make a big stink about all this and how our country is going into the toilet and see what happens!!!!!
I agree that this makes for good conversation, however, for you to say it is all a fairytale is very narrow minded!!!!

We have to understand that we are not seeking "our truth" but "the" truth", which encompasses us. The movie has a proclivity, as any type of research or argument does, toward antitheism. In research we find articles which suit our need in aiding our argument to prove or disprove, regardless if there is other research out there "anti" that argument. Then we test our hypothesis, and solidfy our argument with results and then the skewed conclusion. Real research or science should not skew but account for all ideas and then deduce from all encompassing understanding. The movie has a good scientific or research foundation but a weak conclusion, which a lot of people would accept, without know all of the background information. The narrator/moderator does say a very good point about the lack of knowledge and knowing having people to think narrow mindedly and drawing irrational, inadequate conclusions. The issue is that the narrator is doing the same thing. eg. It is fine to say that Horus and all of the dieties that were worshiped over time have the same origin, but the only problem is that he didn't account for the slight differences (No one knows when Jesus was born Dec. 25 was the date given for celebration of his birth. The word Maji doesnt mean kings it means wise one and the maji just so happened to be kings. The narrator only names few of the miracles another of the dieties supposedly did, but I wonder why he didn's name all of them. The big one is that Jesus didn't have 12 disciples, he had 13, REMEMBER MATHIAS AFTER JUDAS DIED. ). I'm not denouncing the history that has been given because it is true but what I am clarifying is that because we have a piece of history doesnt mean that it fits in the puzzle the way that we say with our limited understanding. This is the reason I say we have to study to get full CORRECT knowledge and understanding then we can draw valid sound conclusions.

Yahweh is a DIRECT-Gip off the Sumerian Gods Enki(good creative) and Enhil(bad-destructive).

================================================== ==========
MOD warning: Post by TheVisitor has some questionable information,the rest is fiction.
================================================== ==========


Egypt received her science and mathematics from the Chaldeans and in turn Greece received them from Egypt.
Since the priests were in charge of teaching these sciences, and since these sciences were used as a part of religion, we already know the key as to how the Babylonish religion gained its strength in these two countries.
It is also true that whenever a nation was able to overcome another nation, in due time the religion of the subduer became the religion of the subdued.
It is well known that the Greeks had the very same signs of the Zodiac as did the Babylonians; and it has been found in the ancient Egyptian records that the Egyptians gave the Greeks their knowledge of polytheism.

Thus the mysteries of Babylon spread from nation to nation until it appeared in Rome, in China, India and even in both North and South America we find the very same basic worship.

The ancient histories agree with the Bible that this Babylonish religion was most certainly not the original religion of earth's early peoples.
It was the first to drift away from the original faith; but it was not itself the original one.
Historians such as Wilkinson and Mallett have proven conclusively from the ancient documents that at one time all the peoples of the earth believed in ONE GOD, supreme, eternal, invisible, Who by the Word of His mouth spoke all things into existence, and that in His character He was loving and good and just.
But as Satan will always corrupt whatever he can, we find him corrupting the minds and hearts of men so that they reject the truth. As he has always attempted to receive worship as though he were God and not the servant and creation of God, he drew worship away from God to the end that he might draw it unto himself and so be exalted.
He certainly did accomplish his desire to spread his religion throughout the whole world. This is authenticated by God in the Book of Romans, "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, until they became vain in their imaginations, and through darkness of heart accepted a corrupted religion to the extent that they worshipped creatures and not the Creator." Remember, Satan was a creature of God (Son of the Morning).

Thus we find that where once truth was disseminated amongst men, and all held to that one truth, there later came a day when a vast group turned from God and spread a diabolical form of worship around the world.

History bears it out that those of the tribe of Shem that stood with the unchanging truth were in solid opposition to those of Ham who turned away from truth to the devil's lie.
Monotheism turned to polytheism in Babylon.

Is it not strange that while the descendants of Ham went on their way in Satanic worship which involved a basic concept of three gods that there is not one trace of the descendants of Shem believing such a thing or having any ceremonial worship that involved even a type of it?
It is not strange that the Hebrews believed, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is ONE God", if there were three persons in the Godhead? Abraham, the descendant of Shem, in Genesis 18 saw only ONE God with two angels.

Now how was this trinity expressed? It was expressed by an equilateral triangle even as it is expressed in Rome today.
Strange, the Hebrews did not have such a concept.

Now who is right? Is it the Hebrews or the Babylonians?

In Asia the polytheistic idea of three gods in one came out in an image with three heads on one body. He is expressed as three intelligences.

In India, they found it in their hearts to express him as one god in three forms. Now that really is good modern day theology.

In Japan there is a great Buddha with three heads like the one we previously described.

The doctrine of the trinity has destroyed the multitudes and will destroy until Jesus comes.
According to history it did not take long for a change to be made in this concept of a Father and a Son and the Holy Ghost.
Satan took them a step at a time away from the truth.
The evolved concept of Deity was now: 1. The eternal father, 2. The Spirit of God incarnate in a HUMAN mother. (Does that make you think?) 3. A Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation, (Woman's seed).

But the devil is not content. He hasn't achieved worship of himself yet, except in an indirect way. So he takes the people away from the truth still further.
Since it was not necessary to worship the creator-father, it was only natural that worship swung to the "Mother and Child" as the objects of adoration.

In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris.

In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.)

In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius.

In Rome and in Greece it followed suit.

And in China.
Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe.
The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.

The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries.
In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women.
In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz.
Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus.
To the Babylonians he was Ninus.
What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son".
One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.

That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account.
Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest.
HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS.

He conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia as these men knew not the arts of war."
Diodorus says, "Ninus was the most ancient of Assyrian kings mentioned in history.
Being of warlike disposition he trained many young men rigorously in the arts of war.
He brought Babylonia under him while yet there was no city of Babylon."

Thus we see this Ninus started to become great in Babylon, built Babel and took over Assyria, becoming its king, and then proceeded to devour other vast territories where the people were unskilled in war and lived in a moderate way as said Pompeius.
Now in Genesis 10, speaking of the kingdom of Nimrod it says, "And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar.

Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, and Calah etc."
But the translators made a mistake in translating Asshur as a noun for it is a verb, and in the Chaldee means 'to make strong.'
Thus it is Nimrod, who having been made strong (he established his kingdom by building the world's first army which he trained by drilling and through the rigors of hunting) went beyond Shinar with his strong army and subdued nations and built such cities as Nineveh, which was named after him, for even today a chief part of the ruins of that city is called Nimroud!

Since we have discovered who Ninus was, it is now necessary to discover who his father was.
According to history it was Bel, the founder of Babylon. (Now it is to be noted here that Bel founded it in the sense that he started this whole move, but it was the son, Ninus, that established it and was the first king etc.)
But according to the Scripture, the father of Nimrod was Cush: "And Cush begat Nimrod." Not only is this so but we find that Ham begat Cush.
Now, in the Egyptian culture Bel was called Hermes, and Hermes means, "THE SON OF HAM".
According to history Hermes was the great prophet of idolatry.

He was the interpreter of the gods. Another name by which he was called was Mercury. (Read Acts 14:11-12)

Hyginus says this about that god who was known variously as Bel, Hermes, Mercury etc, "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove (not the Roman Jove, but Jehovah of the Hebrews who predates Roman history) without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language.

But after that Mercury (Bel, Cush) interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes) the same individual distributed the nations.

Then discord began." It is seen from this that Bel or Cush, the father of Nimrod, originally was the ring leader that led the people away from the true God and encouraged the people as the "interpreter of the gods" to take another form of religion.
He encouraged them to go ahead with the tower which his son actually built. This encouragement is what brought the confusion and the division of men, so that he was both, "interpreter and confuser".

Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods.
Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus.
He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people.
Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos".

Thus we find that the Cush of the Bible, the original rebel against monotheism was called Bel, Belus, Hermes, Janus, etc. amongst the ancient peoples.
He purported to bring revelations and interpretations from the gods to the people.
In so doing he caused the wrath of God to scatter the people, bringing division and confusion.

Now up to this point we have seen whence polytheism or the worship of many gods came.
But did you notice that we also found a mention of a man named Cush who was given a title of "the father of the gods."?
Did you notice here the old theme of ancient mythologies, that gods identify themselves with men?
That is where ancestor worship comes from.
So we might just examine history to find out about ancestor worship.
Well, it was brought out that Cush introduced a three god worship of father, son and spirit.
Three gods who were all equal.

But he knew about the seed of the woman coming, so there would have to be a woman and her seed come into the picture.
This was brought to pass when Nimrod died. His wife, Semiramis deified him, and thus made herself the mother of the son and also the mother of the gods. (Just exactly as the Roman church has deified Mary.
They claim she was without sin and was the Mother of God.)
She (Semiramis) called Nimrod "Zeroashta" which means, "the woman's promised seed".

But it wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent.
They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine.
How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been elevated to immortality.

"Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church."
If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome.

Not only was ancestor worship originated in Babylon but so also was the worship of nature.
It was in Babylon the gods were identified with the sun and moon, etc.
The chief object in nature was the sun which has light giving and heat giving properties and appears to man as a ball of fire in the heavens.

Thus the chief god would be the sun god whom they called Baal.

Often the sun was depicted as a circle of flame and soon around that flame there appeared a serpent. It wasn't long until the serpent became a symbol of the sun and consequently worshipped. Thus the desire of Satan's heart became full-fledged. He was worshipped as God. His throne was established. His slaves bowed to him. There in Pergamos in the form of a living serpent he was worshipped.

Now look at the symbol for Sci-Forums at the top of the page.
What do you see?

================================================== ==========
MOD warning: Post by TheVisitor has some questionable information, the rest is fiction.
================================================== ==========

The religious parts of the movie are only slightly less contraversial than the 9/11 and new world order stuff. But basically the same mind set that could believe the latter two would have trouble being objective and rational about the first as well.

I would class it as edutainment and suggest getting out the hip waders, and I'm by no means religious friendly. FYI, there links are not exactly unbiased and the conclusions drawn aren't necessarily supportable. For example its at least as reasonable to assume JHVH was the adoption of a local caaninite deity.

Here is the evidence for the first part of Zeitgeist:

Footage from “The Naked Truth”
IRES | All Rights Reserved

Audio from “Revelations”
by Bill Hicks | All Rights Reserved

Audio from “The Light of the World”
Courtesy of Jordan Maxwell | All Rights Reserved


Information Sources

Massey, Gerald
“The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ”
Book Tree Publishing

Massey, Gerald
“Ancient Egypt, Light of the World”
Kessinger Publishing

Massey, Gerald
“Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta”
Kessinger Publishing

Acharya S
“The Christ Conspiracy”
Adventures Unlimited Press

Acharya S
“Suns of God”
Adventures Unlimited Press

Churchward, Albert
“The Origin and Evolution of Religion”
Book Tree Publishing

Murdock, D.M
“Who was Jesus?”
Steller House Publishing

Allegro, John
“The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth”
Book Tree Publishing

Maxwell, Tice & Snow
“That Old Time Religion”
Book Tree Publishing

King James Version
“The Holy Bible”

Leedom, Tim C.
“The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read”
TS Books Publishing

Remsburg, John F.
“The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence”
Prometheus Books Publishing

Irvin & Rutajit
“Astrotheology and Shamanism”
Book Tree Publishing

Doherty, Earl
“The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ?”
Age of Reason Publishing

Campbell, Joseph
“Creative Mythology: The Masks of God”
Penguin Publishing

Doane, T.W.
“Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions”
Health Research Publishing

Carpenter, Edward
“Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning”
The Book Tree Publishing

Rolleston, Frances
“Mazzaroth”
Rivingtons, Waterloo Place Publishing

Cumont, Franz
“Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans”
Cosimo Classics Publishing

Fideler, David
“Jesus Christ, Sun of God”
Quest Books Publishing

Berry, Gerald
“Religions Of The World”
Barnes & Noble Publishing

Frazer, Sir James
“The Golden Bough”
Touchstone Publishing

Wheless, Joseph
“Forgery in Christianity”
Cosimo Classics Publishing

Singh, Madanjeet
“The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life”
UNESCO Publishing

Jackson, John G.
“Christianity Before Christ”
American Atheist Press Publishing

Weak.

Needlessly melodramatic and simplistic.

Needlessly melodramatic and simplistic.

Your arguments are positively scintillating :rolleyes:

Now look at the symbol for Sci-Forums at the top of the page.
What do you see?

The simple circle/saw blade image w/ initials that were voted the best looking by users sometime ~ 2 years ago. There were tons of submissions, some complex, others very simple. That one was a good mix. No Satan at play, unless he hangs out on the forums, and submitted designs.

other options that didn't win:
http://www.sciforums.com/uploads/logo_samples.jpg

the thread itself (there is an image of questionable content on page 1, so don't click if you don't want to see it)
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58600

I'm not sure that there is any worth talking about religion that is not somehow influenced from prior beliefs.

What do you mean?
Are you implying that all religions have come from the ideas of other religions?
If so, then any religion that is known to have taken ideas from other religions more or less instantly loses credibility.

Is there substantial proof that Christianity chewed a bit off Paganism?
If so, how can Christianity have any credibility whatsoever?

If so, how can Christianity have any credibility whatsoever?

Christianity has credibility? :bugeye:

The simple circle/saw blade image w/ initials that were voted the best looking by users sometime ~ 2 years ago. There were tons of submissions, some complex, others very simple. That one was a good mix. No Satan at play, unless he hangs out on the forums, and submitted designs.

I probably shouldn't have added that part at the end about the symbol for Sciforums resembling the symbol for the sun.
I does remind one of the circle that I was describing, but that only served to distract the conclusion of the post from the main objective.
It wasn't about sun symbology or the SF image. I must apologize for that.

The information I provided was to show that with prophetic scriptures and ancient mythology...the older source isn't necessarily the true origin of the subject. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987622&postcount=33

This refutes the Zeitgeist movie claims.
For example; It is true Moses lived after the Sumerians and the Egyptians, and recorded his accounts of similar events after they did.
That is not being contested.
But Moses being a prophet claimed to see these events in a vision or received them from God directly, and that is what's claimed to have given him a firsthand perspective.

He didn't just write down legends passed down from the other nations and change the names....as some would have us believe.

The reason the same stories about a coming messiah existed in other nations like India and China thousands of years before Israel is because those were prophecies seen in visions by prophets like Noah and Enoch all the way back to Adam.
The history I provided showed how these events were written down by many different cultures, when the world was all of one language and worshiped one God before polytheism started in Babylon and divided the Earth into waring nations and different tongues using religion as a tool for war.

So in reality, the evidence this movie provided attempting to discredit the Bible, actually helps to prove that once the world was monotheistic, and believed in one God after the flood.

Without reading nearly any responses, I'm going to post my presentation for my English 12 editorial. Think of it what you like, But it is very well researched. I do not have to this day, original citations. But the work is 100% original. Comment if you like.

The Truth of The Zeitgeist

The Zeitgeist is a conspiracy documentary that falsely claims that Judean-Christianity is a fraud. They base their claims on the ancient Pagan-Egyptian worship of the sun using cleverly assembled evidence claims dating from 3000BC. The Zeitgeist attempts to prove Jesus Christ and many other ancient savior-figures throughout time all share the same traits regarding their lifestyle, lifespan, and attributes. The Zeitgeist bases these claims around one ancient sky God named Horus, an ancient savior named Attis, the 12 signs of the Zodiac, and how they relate to the Bible. Through easily obtainable information, however, The Zeitgeist philosophy can be easily discredited.
According to The Zeitgeist, the life of Horus is as follows: “Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25. Horus was referred to as the Alpha and Omega, the Lamb of God, and many others. A star in the east marked the arrival of the newborn King, to which 3 solar deities traveled from the east to follow and adorn the new savior. The priest Anup baptized Horus at age 30, and he thus began his ministry followed closely by 12 disciples. Horus was crucified, buried, and remained dead for 3 days, and was thus resurrected and ascended into heaven.” If someone heard this story without knowing it is the story of Horus, one would assume this is the life of Jesus Christ. The Zeitgeist uses their packaged evidence to argue that the basic facts about Horus travel across time from savior to savior while always showing identical parallels between them. The Zeitgeist argues that such saviors as Attis, Dionysus, Krishna, Buddha, and many others share this same tale. However, research can prove many fallacies in the claims made by The Zeitgeist, and many of the parallels The Zeitgeist shows between Horus and Jesus Christ are false.
To begin with, Jesus Christ was not literally born on December 25. It is not known what day he was born, and December 25 has been the day of celebration of Jesus Christ’s life. Horus was not born of a virgin. Research into the life of Horus has proven that Osiris fathered him, and was murdered shortly after his birth. Horus was supposedly crucified some time after he began his ministry. However, crucifixion was not invented until the first century by the Roman Empire, and even the earliest traces of punishment similar to crucifixion goes back to the Persian Empire, long after Horus’ time. The Zeitgeist claims that the 3 Kings that follow Jesus Christ are direct parallels to the ancient deities that followed Horus. However, in no point in the Bible, or the Scriptures are 3 Kings said to have followed Jesus Christ. In Mathew 2:1 he writes “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King, Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.” As this quote clearly states, there is no specific number of wise men that traveled west to adorn the new savior.
There were also many gods known by the name of Horus in that time. In the version of Horus’ life selected by the creator of The Zeitgeist, Horus was represented by a falcon whose eyes were the sun and the moon, and whose breath was the cool north wind. However, later portrayals of Horus depict him as a young child suckling his mother Isis’ breast, and not as a falcon. These changes in the tale of Horus show how unreliable and fragmented the information truly is.
Horus was successful in avenging his father’s death and becoming his successor. Osiris then became the King of the dead, while Horus became the King of the living. By the fourth dynasty, the King of the living (Horus) was said to have been one of the greatest gods. However in the fifth dynasty, the supremacy of the Cult of Ray (cult of the sun) was accepted by even the kings, and at this point the King of the living (Horus) was now named the Sun of Ray. These events of the life of Horus cease to appear in The Zeitgeist, and for good reason: they share absolutely no parallels with the life of Jesus Christ.
Myths of Pagan Gods have changed throughout history, and there is no documentation prior to the New Testament that accredits the claims made by The Zeitgeist regarding the resemblances of Jesus Christ to Horus. The only thing that has remained constant over this timeframe is Jesus Christ himself, and the New Testament book of Hebrew states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.”
The Zeitgeist claims that Attis is yet another ancient deity that Jesus Christ’s life derived from. Cybelle, also known as the Goddess of Nature, loved the deity Attis. According to the myth of Attis and Cybelle “because of unfaithfulness, and overcome with madness, Attis died.” Upon Attis’ death, Cybelle introduced death and mourning into the natural world. After the introduction of death to the natural world, Cybelle resurrected Attis, and this myth is known as “The Resurrection of Attis.” “The Resurrection of Attis” is not mentioned in history until around 150 AD, long after the death of Jesus Christ. There are literally countless fallacies throughout the Christianity section of The Zeitgeist, but with simple research, one can break down these claims piece by piece and discern the truth behind the arguments made by The Zeitgeist.
The Zeitgeist also argues that Jesus Christ, his 12 disciples, and many aspects of his life were derived directly from the pagan sign of the Zodiac. Edward Carpenter wrote in his book Pagan and Christian Creeds that the Virgin Mary is simply a character based on the Pagan Zodiac sign Virgo (Virgin, House of Bread). Marcia Montegenero wrote in his book Spellbound “you can’t just make a story out of names like Virgo, Leo, Taurus etc. And why doesn’t the story begin with Ares? If it did, then Leo comes before Virgo, yet Leo is supposedly Jesus Christ, The Lion of Judah. It seems he would come after Virgo in a story.” The Zeitgeist shows how the word Bethlehem can be translated to mean “The House of Bread” or the constellation Virgo, and that Bethlehem is “a place in the sky, not a real place on earth.” However, there have been sources to attest to Bethlehem’s existence from sources Biblical and non-affiliated. Flavius Josephus the Jewish historian wrote of Bethlehem as being the location where King David was anointed to become the future King of Israel. His writings took place before the Old Testament was written. J.B Hennessey wrote of the archaeological evidence that Bethlehem was mass populated during the first century AD or the Paleolithic period. Acharya S was one of the main sources listed for The Zeitgeist. She wrote of how Jesus Christ represented the sun, and each of his 12 disciples represented each of the 12 symbols of the Zodiac through which the sun must pass. What she does not explain in her work, is how Jesus Christ supposedly “passed” through his 12 disciples, or how the Zodiac signs follows the sun. Exodus: 32 writes of how Moses came down from the mount with the 10 Commandments, and shattered the tablets after witnessing the Israelites worshiping the Golden Calf. Shortly thereafter, Moses took and burned the Calf. Skeptics mark this sequence of events as the changing of the ages from the age of Taurus represented by the Golden Calf, to the age of Ares, the Ram represented by Moses. The Zeitgeist claims that this is why the Jews still play the Ram’s horn today. However, there is no documentation of Moses ever playing a rams horn. Moses simply cannot be identified as, or with a ram in any interpretation of the Bible or the Scriptures. In Luke 22:10 Jesus Christ tells his disciples to “enter into the city where the will meet a man bearing a pitcher of water.” Acharya S sees this as the coming of the new Age of Aquarius represented by Jesus Christ. The Age of Aquarius begins in 2150 AD. However, Acharya S claims, “Jesus became the good shepherd, and the Lamb in Ares, the Ram.” The Age of Ares is around 2150 BC to 1 AD, and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
The Zeitgeist states that Jesus Christ represents that Age of Pisces because his two disciples James and John were fisherman, and the symbol for the Age of Pisces is two fish. To these critics who downplay Christianity, any mention in the Bible of a Bull seems to represent the Age of Taurus, any mention of fish to the Age of Pisces, and any mention of water to the Age of Aquarius. Although two of Jesus Christ’ disciples were fisherman, the other 10 had jobs and duties seemingly left of The Zeitgeist for obvious reasons; they had no relation to the sign of the Zodiac in any way. The Zeitgeist interprets Jesus Christ’s relation to fish and two fishermen as being astrologically related. However, The Zeitgeist does not show any astrological comparison to any of Jesus Christ’s other attributes throughout his life.
The Zeitgeist falsely claims that Judean-Christianity is a fraud. They base their claims on the ancient Pagan-Egyptian worship of the sun using cleverly assembled evidence claims dating from 3000BC. The Zeitgeist attempts to prove Jesus Christ and many other ancient savior-figures throughout time all share the same traits regarding their lifestyle, lifespan, and attributes. The Zeitgeist bases these claims around one ancient sky God named Horus, an ancient savior named Attis, the 12 signs of the Zodiac, and how they relate to the Bible. Through easily obtainable information however, The Zeitgeist philosophy can be easily discredited.

CranE,

You should come to understand that if people didnt know 2000 years ago surely they dont know today. Just a bunch of faded cave drawings that mean nothing and conjecture. Every successive 'expert' deluding themselves further and further. yearning for importance, to believe they are smarter, to believe they are better. Looking for the answers they will never have. Sad...

This is - Zeitgeist.

CranE,

You should come to understand that if people didnt know 2000 years ago surely they dont know today. Just a bunch of faded cave drawings that mean nothing and conjecture. Every successive 'expert' deluding themselves further and further. yearning for importance, to believe they are smarter, to believe they are better. Looking for the answers they will never have. Sad...

This is - Zeitgeist.

Oh I agree the answers will never be found except perhaps in the after-life. This paper was a requirement for me to pass Eng. 12.

There is a lot of misinformation, including sun worship. I think it is exaggerated and to use the term 'worship' is far fetched. Most here will disagree though. One thing i am certain of is that humans always recognized the human form as something special and objects as objects. We can say reverence or even some supernatural association with the sun but then all things we dont understand are viewed as supernatural. So what is supernatural? things are either right or wrong and that is basically all.

There is a lot of misinformation, including sun worship. I think it is exaggerated and the term 'worship' is far fetched way of looking at it.

If you are referring to my editorial. I would say that the word worship is used appropriately. I believe that the ancient pagan's I refer to knew and accepted that without the sun, they could not exist. That's my rationality in word choice.

so where does the worship come in? without food you wouldn't exist either. dont you think they knew that as well?

so where does the worship come in? without food you wouldn't exist either. dont you think they knew that as well?

You could put it this way. if they wanted food, or oxygen, or water, or any life necessity. They could somehow obtain it. However, The sun is the source of all these things, not necessarily their creation, but without the sun, none of the aforementioned material would matter at all now would it.

However, The sun is the source of all these things, not necessarily their creation, but without the sun, none of the aforementioned material would matter at all now would it.


you are assuming they even where aware of that. What was to stop them from believing that if the sun went away one day it would be replaced immediately by some 'real' god or maybe just pop into place?

they know of fish. if they take a fish out of water the fish dies. does that mean they believed water was god of fish? i dont think people ever worshipped anything other than somthing close to a living creature and the vast majority of the time very close to a human form.

i dont think people ever worshipped anything other than somthing close to a living creature and the vast majority of the time very close to a human form.

I do. I think ancient Egyptians worshiped the sun lol.

Worshiping the sun makes a whole lot more sense than worshiping some imaginary being.

Definitely.

But on a more serious note. Ask yourself how something as great as God and Christianity itself (assuming it is true) can be followed by so much controversy?

Should the claims of Zeitgeist however seem over exaggerated or false (regarding the federal reserve bank etc), should we not ask ourselves why these claims, as far fetched as some may be, are totally within context of of having a chance of being true.

The real issue is not whether Zeitgeist claims are 100% true, but what is really going on behind the curtains, whether they coincide with Zeitgeist conspiracy or not. She should not focus our energy on whether this movie is true in its entirety, but rather take from it the wake up call, that there are things going on around us which are not always coincidental. The global economic crisis for example, recession, who could set such a crisis in motion and benefit from it?

I apologize if I have indeed gone off topic of the original post. I just feel there are more important matters to discuss than the finer details of this movie, and that we should rather not take the movie as cold hard fact, but take away the possibilities it shows us, things that could and might be really happening and the implications therefore, even if the actual circumstances may be different.

I feel as if I have confused myself in this post, hehe. Please comment, would like to know what you think.

I believe Thomas Jefferson -

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Private banking swindeled its way into this nation. It was not what our founding fathers intended.

I don't have links , but Popular mechanics does point out some of their points about the 11th of September could very well be false.
The third part of the movie, according to Read Only, Isn't true because there is oversight, and the Federal Reserve has its own senate comittee.

OK after a bit of research here's what I found out about 'Popular Mechanics'

This is all in the public domain and with a little research can be found out.

Popular Mechanics is owned by a corporation called Hearst Communications, Inc
(to verify please look at the bottom of the Popular mechanics website)

A Director of Hearst Comm is a woman called - Cathleen P Black Who also has ties with the following corporations -

USA Today (Publisher)
Coca Cola (Director)
The Council of Foreign Relations (Director)

and many more...

Now I don't have time here to get into the intricacies of each corporation, but I think we can all agree that you don't made a director of a corporation or council because of nothing. So it makes sense that Popular Mechanics disputes the 911 truth. I have spent countless hours researching (not just watching documentaries but conducting my own investigation into) 911 and I am convinced that it was definitely not an act of terror that came from outside the USA, but an act of terror that came from within.

People need to wake up... If the facts surrounding the trade center buildings don't convince you then take a look at building 7! Despite the fire and debris damage, there is now way that building should have crumbled to the ground, at the VERY VERY most and this is stretching a lot it could have been a partial collapse.

The world is suffering from the most terrible cancer and people can't even see it.

Don't believe zeitgeist, don't believe other docuementaries, simply conduct your own research and you will soon see that official story of 911 is just fakery!

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein.

I do. I think ancient Egyptians worshiped the sun lol.

then you think wrong.:)

Is it really so immensely, critically, massively important whether if the claims about Christianity are true or not? Honestly, is it going to make any difference? In both situation, true or not, message is clear: Our current religions are archaic. They do not represent our real challenges or level of knowledge about things. Assume that Christianity is unique, and it has nothing to do with anything before it. Does that make Christianity more valuable and useful than its actual position in our minds and civilization? Does that change the fact that it's been two thousands years since Christianity was introduced? No, it does not. What's the point?

...Don't believe zeitgeist, don't believe other docuementaries, simply conduct your own research and you will soon see that official story of 911 is just fakery!

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein.

I agree with your assertion that the official story of 911 has a fair amount of fakery to it. Nevertheless, many people believe it, including the heads of administration in this forum. This preference is so pronounced, in fact, that 9/11 threads have been on auto lock not once, but twice; Stryder, a super mod recently did so again, as can be seen in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2307602&postcount=123

I recommend that you join me and others in democratic underground, a forum that is more tolerant of differing points of view, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

I'm scott75 over there.

Zeitgeist offers no reference for its claims. Inasmuch as they may sound true, any honest intellect will not accept claims without reference sources.

Zeitgeist offers no reference for its claims. Inasmuch as they may sound true, any honest intellect will not accept claims without reference sources.

Only someone who has done very little research regarding 9/11 would not recognize someone like Steven Jones, who is presented in the film, and who has published peer reviewed papers both before and after 9/11. There is also much more material in that movie that has tons of evidence backing it up. Furthermore, I believe that documentary films shouldn't be the end of a person's research; they should only be the beginning.

I do. I think ancient Egyptians worshiped the sun lol.
You'd be dead wrong, though. The Egyptians worshipped many, many gods. Foremost among which was a god of the sun.

God of the sun =/= the sun itself. Though to the common man, it may have.

The first part of the following movie states that the Judeo Christian Religions were copied directly off egyptian, and early Sun worshipping cults.
Is what this movie saying true or complete bollocks ?

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Yeah its true. The same story's been told hundreds of ways over thousands of years, and somehow morons conclude that's evidence that the story doesn't mean anything. Lol.

Yeah its true. The same story's been told hundreds of ways over thousands of years, and somehow morons conclude that's evidence that the story doesn't mean anything. Lol.

I don't think many people claim that the stories don't mean anything, they just claim that it's hard to know what it means and they reject unsubstantiated and often ridiculous assumptions about it (like the abrahamic religions make).

You'd be dead wrong, though. The Egyptians worshipped many, many gods. Foremost among which was a god of the sun.

God of the sun =/= the sun itself. Though to the common man, it may have.

And you don't think that the god of the sun originally was the sun itself ?

I don't think many people claim that the stories don't mean anything, they just claim that it's hard to know what it means and they reject unsubstantiated and often ridiculous assumptions about it (like the abrahamic religions make).

I've heard many people do that.

Assumptions like what?

Are you referring to the religious who feel threatened by it?

I've heard many people do that.

Assumptions like what?

Are you referring to the religious who feel threatened by it?

How does one get from the Egyptian sun religion to Christianity without unfounded assumptions ?

You'd be dead wrong, though. The Egyptians worshipped many, many gods. Foremost among which was a god of the sun.

God of the sun =/= the sun itself. Though to the common man, it may have.

i've been telling people here that for years. one ex moderator of the comparitive religion forum even opened up a thread on it. he called it "John thinks there was no sun worship". or something like that.

of course no one has ever worshipped the Sun as a God\Deity (i should say no one in their right mind or what would be considered the norm). But that is what they read and for some reason they believe it. Just like this 'movie', just entertainment with some snippets of reality. I think the amalgamation of the two is what confuses people. is is trickery? well yes but not necessarily wehn people want to be tricked.

of course no one has ever worshipped the Sun as a God\Deity.

"Of course" ? Why not ?

because it isnt normal human behavior to worship an object as a stand alone God. this doesnt happen, but that is the impression people get when they read 'Sun Worship'. it isnt accurate, throughout history all Gods have been close to human form at ther very least they were living, breathing, thinking beings.

i remember one woman here fighting with me saying 'they thought the sun was living because it went to sleep at night'....loooool. NO there was always another deity behind the Sun and NOT the Sun itself. comprende'?

because it isnt normal human behavior to worship an object as a stand alone God.
And it IS normal behavior to worship some invisible entity you have no experience of whatsoever ? LOL


this doesnt happen, but that is the impression people get when they read 'Sun Worship'. it isnt accurate, throughout history all Gods have been close to human form at ther very least they were living, breathing, thinking beings.
Utter nonsense. Ever heard of Idolatry ? Or animal worship ?
I think it makes a whole goddamn lot more sense to worship the actual sun than it does to worship something that might as well not even exist for all you know.


i remember one woman here fighting with me saying 'they thought the sun was living because it went to sleep at night'....loooool.
You are hardly the one to 'lol' over something like that, John.


NO there was always another deity behind the Sun and NOT the Sun itself. comprende'?
Evidence ?

“
Originally Posted by John99
i remember one woman here fighting with me saying 'they thought the sun was living because it went to sleep at night'....loooool.
”
Enmos: You are hardly the one to 'lol' over something like that, John.

what is that supposed to mean?

what is that supposed to mean?

Do you really want me to dig that all up for you again ?

Just answer the rest of the post, please.

when a newborn baby first open their eyes the first thing they see is their mother, or close to first. they know where they came from.

Do you really want me to dig that all up for you again ?



i dont know what your talking about.

when a newborn baby first open their eyes the first thing they see is their mother, or close to first. they know where they came from.
How the fuck is this relevant to anything in this thread ?


i dont know what your talking about.
Well, since you insist..

"Trees are not alive" ~John99

"A tree is closer to a snowflake than it is to a mountain lion." ~John99

that seems reasonable, in context it is.

that seems reasonable, in context it is.

Do you mind answering post 71 ?

i already did in #70.

How does one get from the Egyptian sun religion to Christianity without unfounded assumptions ?

the whole point of the movie is that the same story has been told over and over again over time, and in a lot of different ways, and in the lives of many.

and i see the moronicism (did i just make that word up?) on both sides. the atheists see the movie and say, "ah ha! christianity is a bunch of bunk!" and the religious christians say, "it's not true! it's not true!", because you know, they do own god and christ.

i long for a time when i'm not surrounded by people who are so completely immersed in some egomaniacal agenda, that they would be able to yank their heads out of their asses long enough to have a logical thought.

i already did in #70.

Oh, I see. You answered post 71 in post 70.. :crazy:

Answer these:

John: "because it isnt normal human behavior to worship an object as a stand alone God."
Me: And it IS normal behavior to worship some invisible entity you have no experience of whatsoever ?

John: "throughout history all Gods have been close to human form at ther very least they were living, breathing, thinking beings."
Me: Ever heard of Idolatry ? Or animal worship ?

John: "NO there was always another deity behind the Sun and NOT the Sun itself. comprende'?"
Me: Evidence ?

the whole point of the movie is that the same story has been told over and over again over time, and in a lot of different ways, and in the lives of many.
Because of unsubstantiated assumptions.


and i see the moronicism (did i just make that word up?) on both sides. the atheists see the movie and say, "ah ha! christianity is a bunch of bunk!" and the religious christians say, "it's not true! it's not true!", because you know, they do own god and christ.
I don't understand, why would it be more bunk if it came from sun worship ?


i long for a time when i'm not surrounded by people who are so completely immersed in some egomaniacal agenda, that they would be able to yank their heads out of their asses long enough to have a logical thought.
No comment :D

it isnt accurate, throughout history all Gods have been close to human form at ther very least they were living, breathing, thinking beings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

key word is aware. just study sun worship and you see thtat there was another entity connected with it and that entity was the one they were worshipping. the sun was an extension.

i dont advocate a belief system, i think that is what you are looking for. i am being subjective and viewing this through a sociological\anthropolgical lens.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient

key word is aware. just study sun worship and you see thtat there was another entity connected with it and that entity was the one they were worshipping. the sun was an extension.

i dont advocate a belief system, i think that is what you are looking for. i am being subjective and viewing this through a sociological\anthropolgical lens.

What does that definition have to do with anything ?
Will you just answer my questions already!? :mad:

forgive my typographical error, post 83 should read: anthropological.

Because of unsubstantiated assumptions.


I don't understand, why would it be more bunk if it came from sun worship ?


No comment :D


what i'm saying is that the fact that this same story or premise has been told over and over again to many people throughout history in many different ways lends to substantiation that quite possibly the story or premise is NOT bunk, no matter which way you come to understand it.

forgive my typographical error, post 83 should read: anthropological.

Support your goddamn claims!

what i'm saying is that the fact that this same story or premise has been told over and over again to many people throughout history in many different ways lends to substantiation that quite possibly the story or premise is NOT bunk, no matter which way you come to understand it.

How, for the love of God, do you figure that ?
If I make up a story right here and now and it is told and retold for a few thousand years, causing the eventual story to be quite different from the original one, why would that mean that either one, or any intermediate ones, would not be bunk ?
And I'm not apologizing for that unsightly sentence either ! There, take that ! :D

what i'm saying is that the fact that this same story or premise has been told over and over again to many people throughout history in many different ways lends to substantiation that quite possibly the story or premise is NOT bunk, no matter which way you come to understand it.

Just like Aesop's Fables and Grimms Fairy Tales? :rolleyes:

I like Zeitgeist for opening eyes, but they do reach at times ;).

Peter Jacobs didn't research the material himself, he just presented information others have claimed to researched.

Alot of Zeitgeist offers alternative perceptions of what may have occured, but the actual physical evidence doesn't really offer any proof other than more and more perceptions!

I prefer Zeitgeist 2: Addendum,
which sticks to factual info against money systems and gets into resource based societies for a possible future.

How, for the love of God, do you figure that ?
If I make up a story right here and now and it is told and retold for a few thousand years, causing the eventual story to be quite different from the original one, why would that mean that either one, or any intermediate ones, would not be bunk ?
And I'm not apologizing for that unsightly sentence either ! There, take that ! :D

There was quite a variation in the source and/or basis for the same stories.

There was quite a variation in the source and/or basis for the same stories.

Evidence ?

On a side note, I thought you weren't religious ?

Evidence ?

On a side note, I thought you weren't religious ?

if i remember the movie correctly, it's even written in the stars.

what i'm saying is that the fact that this same story or premise has been told over and over again to many people throughout history in many different ways lends to substantiation that quite possibly the story or premise is NOT bunk, no matter which way you come to understand it.

So if people shout long enough, and hard enough, it becomes the truth Lori?

Or is it simply, that there are only so many good stories. Good triumphing over evil, lost loves reunited, that sort or crap.

Or is it simply, that there are only so many good stories. Good triumphing over evil, lost loves reunited, that sort or crap.

Well, tropes are not bad. They are tools, and communication wouldn't happen without them (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools). :D

So if people shout long enough, and hard enough, it becomes the truth Lori?

Or is it simply, that there are only so many good stories. Good triumphing over evil, lost loves reunited, that sort or crap.

You don't have to see meaning in anything phlog. I guess that's the beauty of it.

So if people shout long enough, and hard enough, it becomes the truth...?

Actually most of the time that is exactly what happens. If you have a louder voice (ie media) you have more influence over what is perceived as "truth". The church is well versed in this technique.

The next step is when the truth is then held to be self-evident, and then the people still on the fence will be swayed by peer pressure to appear "normal".

Classic stuff really. Our society by design stifles creativity with self-imposed "cliques" which limits the way people can and do think. And people wonder why we dont get true geniuses of the past such as Shakespeare or any of the great classical composers.

All it takes is a little critical thinking to see past the facade.

Like any good conspiracy theory there is a smattering of truth in the movies. But it is cherry picked and then massaged and given a make over so that by the time you get to their "conclusion" you can't recognize it any more.

So then the Zeitgeist movie is duping us into thinking we are dupes?

I knew that from the first line of the movie.

Actually most of the time that is exactly what happens. If you have a louder voice (ie media) you have more influence over what is perceived as "truth". The church is well versed in this technique.

The next step is when the truth is then held to be self-evident, and then the people still on the fence will be swayed by peer pressure to appear "normal".

Classic stuff really. Our society by design stifles creativity with self-imposed "cliques" which limits the way people can and do think.

With you so far...



And people wonder why we dont get true geniuses of the past such as Shakespeare or any of the great classical composers.

I think it's more that most popular music is no longer classical in nature. I personally really enjoy some music from Erik Satie and Debussy, or Holst's "The Planets", but I know that they all died at the beginning of the 20th century. I suppose the most recent classical composer I really like, who also had a strong jazz influence, would be Gershwin, but even he didn't make it to World War II.


All it takes is a little critical thinking to see past the facade.

I think that that would be unfair to those who don't see the deceptions that Zeitgeist attempts to illuminate. I think that the issues involved are fairly complex; I also think that some people may see atleast parts of the truths that film sees, which is still something.

Anyway, if you're looking for a place that has a fair amount of people who are leary of the mass media's claims, you might want to check out places like AboveTopSecret.com (www.abovetopsecret.com/) or Unexplained Mysteries (www.unexplained-mysteries.com), both of which have fairly active forums (I spend a fair amount of time in abovetopsecret these days ;-)).

you might want to check out places like AboveTopSecret.com or Unexplained Mysteries, both of which have fairly active forums (I spend a fair amount of time in abovetopsecret these days ;-)).

been going there for years. nothing has happened...no mysteries solved, no secrets revealed...NOTHING.

been going there for years. nothing has happened...no mysteries solved, no secrets revealed...NOTHING.

Have you posted in either of those forums? I certainly don't recall ever seeing a post from John99 in them anyway.

In any case, I know that you and I don't agree on certain subjects. But atleast on forums such as the ones I mentioned, certain views that are brought up in films such as Zeitgeist can be voiced, which is more than can be said for this forum.

Have you posted in either of those forums? I certainly don't recall ever seeing a post from John99 in them anyway.


yes i have, those and many others. i dont use john99 anywhere. ATS is a woowoo homebase so of course they post woo - not that i am entirely against woo. the other is pretty interesting though.


But atleast on forums such as the ones I mentioned, certain views that are brought up in films such as Zeitgeist can be voiced, which is more than can be said for this forum.

so post over there. who stopped zeitgeist threads here? the movie is a waste of time...it sucks.

I think it's more that most popular music is no longer classical in nature. I personally really enjoy some music from Erik Satie and Debussy, or Holst's "The Planets", but I know that they all died at the beginning of the 20th century. I suppose the most recent classical composer I really like, who also had a strong jazz influence, would be Gershwin, but even he didn't make it to World War II.

What, no love for Stockhausen, Xenakis and Cage?

Have you posted in either of those forums? I certainly don't recall ever seeing a post from John99 in them anyway.

yes i have, those and many others. i dont use john99 anywhere.

Except here, you mean. Care to share your name(s) on ATS and Unexplained Mysteries? I'm scott3x on ATS, scott75 on UM.


ATS is a woowoo homebase so of course they post woo - not that i am entirely against woo.

Very funny :-p. As a matter of fact, though, there are those who believe in official story versions as well; wouldn't be much of a discussion without them I think :-p.



the other is pretty interesting though.

I may go back to UM again; I spent a great deal of time there talking about a particular aspect of 9/11, but then the main guy I was talking to decided to opt out. Kind of hard to run out of people to talk to on ATS; to the contrary, it can take quite a bit of energy just to keep up, laugh :p.





But atleast on forums such as the ones I mentioned, certain views that are brought up in films such as Zeitgeist can be voiced, which is more than can be said for this forum.

so post over there.

I generally do that; sometimes when this thread comes back to life, though, I feel compelled to put in a word or 2 :-p.



who stopped zeitgeist threads here?

Not Zeitgeist threads per se, but certain views that it has; to be specific, its views concerning 9/11. And as to who stopped it, that would be Stryder.



the movie is a waste of time...it sucks.

Well, looks like you've got your mind made up; who am I to interfere with your beliefs?

I think it's more that most popular music is no longer classical in nature. I personally really enjoy some music from Erik Satie and Debussy, or Holst's "The Planets", but I know that they all died at the beginning of the 20th century. I suppose the most recent classical composer I really like, who also had a strong jazz influence, would be Gershwin, but even he didn't make it to World War II.

What, no love for Stockhausen, Xenakis and Cage?

Haven't even heard of them until you brought them up (the wonders of wiki :-p). Maybe if I did, I'd like their music; not sure. Is Cage a rapper? He's the name that came up on wiki ;-). Admittedly, I heard most of all the classical music that I like from my father.

I note that Xenakis got into electronic music; if we allow -electronic- music to be considered as classical, then I must admit that I love Ray Lynch :-).

Upon further thought, I do believe there -is- a modern classical composer that I really do appreciate- Philip Glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Glass). The music he played in the movie Memento (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_%28film%29), which I consider to be my all time favourite sad movie, moves me deeply. Perhaps since I saw it in the movie, however, I don't have the desire to listen to it alone, but rather with the movie. The same goes for the great music in the Star Wars movies, as well as the starter music in Star Trek, TNG, laugh ;-).

I think some animes have classical music in them; I guess I haven't been paying so much attention to the type, but I really do like a lot of the music in some animes anyway ;-).

i am on so many forums, through the years, must have been close to 100 of them. many time i keep the tabs open and go back and forth.


Care to share your name(s) on ATS and Unexplained Mysteries? I'm scott3x on ATS, scott75 on UM.

sorry, i dont share screen names.

the point about woo is that you need to be able to recognize it. :D


Well, looks like you've got your mind made up; who am I to interfere with your beliefs?

you believe those crappy "documentaries" and i do not. the only reason they came about was because ever joe schmoe has editing software and they need to use it...for some purpose. so now i am supposed to sit there and watch unsubstantiated garbage from someone working out of their basement? i dont think so.

we used to get trash books by people and their fantasies and now they want to be film makers.

i am on so many forums, through the years, must have been close to 100 of them. many time i keep the tabs open and go back and forth.

I see :-)



Care to share your name(s) on ATS and Unexplained Mysteries? I'm scott3x on ATS, scott75 on UM.

sorry, i dont share screen names.

Why is that?



the point about woo is that you need to be able to recognize it. :D

And you, ofcourse, are a world renowned expert I'm sure :-p.



you believe those crappy "documentaries" and i do not. the only reason they came about was because ever joe schmoe has editing software and they need to use it...for some purpose.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

On the topic of christianity being copied from other religions, that has been debunked long ago. yes constantine was a sun worshiper, yes RELIGION is corrupt, but the virgin birth story. Christ was the first. the resurection, Christ was the first. a lot is done in the name of christ that is not of him, or i could say Iesos Christos, or Yeshua in hebrew and greek. the gospels have been historically proven by many non christian scholars to be creditable, and in some cases led to them following christ. the gnostic gospels have been discredited however for how late the dating on when they where written. plus there are like 37 documents outside of the bible that document christ, 17 of them being non christian record. christian is not religion, but relational. Christ said love god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. thats it. no war in his name no bombing abortion clinics. love.

but the virgin birth story.
Hey walkbyfaith are you claiming that virgin birth is new to christianity?

Christ was the first. the resurection, Christ was the first.
Jesus was not event the first resurrected person in the bible.

the gospels have been historically proven by many non christian scholars to be creditable
The gospels were written by people that did not even meet Jesus.

HAhahahahahaha hahahaha.

palma palma hallelujah

But Christ is the only God who came to die for your sins, That I know... GB


QUOTE=Hapsburg;1616878]In a way, yes.

Judaism is, for all practical purposes, a revised sun-worship. The Hebrew god Yahweh was based off the Egyptian cult of the sun-god Aten and Babylonian sun deities. Eventually, this henotheism developed into monotheism, and the god previously associated with the sun was associated with All.

Christianity was based on Judaism, but with an extra fold of hero-worship or saviour-worship, which is the cult of Jesus. The early Christian church was, really, a schismatic personality cult within Judaism, and it was by far not the only one. It was, however, the most successful, because it adapted foreign ideas and beliefs into its own belief system.[/QUOTE]