Zeitgeist Totally Refuted! (Do not post Zeitgeist BS ever again)

reply to post by AudioOne


Now THAT'S an open inquiring mind in operation.

I did a lot of research about the origins of Christianity well before Zeitgeist came out (which, incidentally, didn't involve the writings of this Acharya, who I had never heard of until reading this thread). When I watched Zeitgeist I realized that the sections on Christianity were a little simplistic and brief, which is to be expected for a film attempting to cover so many subjects in a short time, and I noticed a few inaccuracies and exaggerations. But I knew enough from my own research to recognize that the basic thrust of Zeitgeists claims regarding the origins of Christianity were certainly true.

However it seems to me that those rejecting Zeitgeist make much of a few errors which don't really affect the validity of the conclusions it presents and minor differences in the tales of the god-men as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They commonly seem to focus on small, largely inconsequential errors, to avoid facing the rather obvious big picture clearly delineated by the sound evidence, which they generally ignore. Thus any slight difference in the stories of the preChristian godmen and that of Jesus are used to dismiss the countless startlingly similar attributes they share. They pretend that if there is not exact correspondence, then there if NO correspondence, when in fact there is a shockingly high degree of correspondence, so much so that there simply must be a direct connection.


That's my take on it anyway.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Complete and utter poppycock. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at all. Since I have actually read and own Acharya's books, I will decide on my own the meaning of these issues and when they were made. You are wrong when you claim that they invented the "perpetual virginity" concept to cover their butts. Here's Acharya's book "Suns of God" (2004) discussing perpetual virginity long before Zeitgeist was ever made:

perpetual virginity
books.google.com...=onepage&q=perpetual%20virginity&f=f alse

"It does not mean that you can get your virginity back. If you have sex"

Ahh, so now you're an expert? What linguistic (language) skills have you? Can you read ancient and biblical languages? I do not get the sense that you are any sort of goto guy on these issues. Acharya specializes in languages - including biblical languages. Before jumping to pre-conceived conclusions on these issues it may actually be wise to READ her work first. Otherwise, it's just intellectual dishonesty. Acharya cites ancient primary sources confirming the perpetual virginity concept. Your opinion on this issue is completely irrelevant.

"What they're trying to say is no matter how many times you have sex you're still a virgin! Well how convenient for the Zeitgeist people huh? But perpetual virginity does not work that way. In other words it's a bunch of BS. They're just plain wrong. They even admit it themselves. Krishna was not a virgin birth. He was some kinda other special, rework the rules, maybe if everyone lets us get away with this crap, pagan, redefinition of the word virgin, virgin birth. Which is something completely different than saying, Mary never had sex. So when they compare the two they're comparing apples and oranges and are being dishonest."

Comments like that only confirm that you have a 5th grade level of understanding on these issues. I'll post videos at the bottom of this post that will help get you up to speed.

"nowhere in the Zeitgeist video do they talk about how the deities had to get their virginity back or the concept of perpetual virginity"

From Acharya's forum:

Basic factoids concerning Zeitgeist part 1: Zeitgeist part 1 is only around 25 minutes long and was never created to serve as a scholarly documentary. The transcript and subtitles have been translated into nearly 3 dozen different languages and has been viewed over 200 million times worldwide. All one has to do is read the Q & A at the Zeitgeist website to see how ZG came into existence: HOW DID "ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE" COME TO BE?: "The original Zeitgeist was actually not a "film", but a performance piece, which consisted of a vaudevillian style multi-media event using recorded music, live instruments and video. The event was given over a 6-night period in New York City and then, without any interest to professionally release or produce the work, was "tossed" up on the Internet arbitrarily. The work was never designed as a film or even a documentary in a traditional sense - it was designed as a creative, provoking, emotionally driven expression, full of artistic extremity and heavily stylized gestures. However, once online, an unexpected flood of interest began to generate. Within 6 months over 50 Million views were recorded on Google Video counters (before they were reset for some reason). The current combined estimates put the number of Internet views at over 100 million as of 2009. Suddenly "Zeitgeist" the event, became "Zeitgeist: The Movie"." - Peter Joseph "The religion section is the strongest of the whole work" - Peter Joseph www.freethoughtnation.com...

reply to post by Malcram


my disagreement with zeitgeist and acharya is the tendency to just relegate thousands of years of data to being nothing but lies. this school of thought was born from the enlightenment belief that the events of the past were not scientifically possible, although it originated with the idea that the ancient greeks couldn't write (which they discovered 40 years later was incorrect but it was too late to salvage the rest of ancient history, which had been ruled as unreliable myths).
i don't want to refuse the validity of our ancestors histories based on a lack of information.

i agree with acharya that there is indeed an astronomical connection between the ancient gods mentioned in ancient texts. but i don't agree that this is ALL the information that is valid in the ancient texts. there are layers of data, one set of info is for the general public, another harder to elucidate, is for the scholar who is willihg to look at the information objectively, and finally, another is the hard core data, which i'm assuming is withheld from our understanding in general, because of how it could be abused

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CuteAngel

 

Actually, the Bible as we know it today is a compilation of varying authors, which were chosen by the Roman Empire to suit their needs of reconciling the old Pagan Roman religions and the new religion of Christ and his followers. Jesus appointed Peter as head of this new Church. It turns out that the concept of the trinity came from Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180 and then later Tertullian.

Yes the Gospels are composed by various authors, but all of the Gospels, including the Gnostic gospels, pre-date Roman control of the Church. Pagan practices were adopted, as well as tenable doctrines like the trinity. However, scripture remains unchanged since it was written. There are thousands of copies of the canonical gospels that pre-date Romanization and they are all within 99% agreement with each other. The Trinity was a result of trying to explain the different aspects of God and trying to reconcile them with the doctrine that "God is One". Is it true? I have no idea, it really isn't addressed in scripture, but it's as good an explanation as any. Heck, the truth might even be more confusing than the trinity, the nature of God is according to dogma "incomprehensible" anyway.

Banned from the official bible are the writings of Origen, who was at first accepted in Christian thought, and later anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. source orthodoxwiki.org...
Other ancient writings not included are excerpts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although the book of Enoch is included in the Apocrypha after beind discovered by James Bruce in 1773. source reluctant-messenger.com...

Nestor, Arius, and Origen had doctrines that caused division among the Church. They might have been right, but as we now see from the thousands of arguing factions of Christianity, division is not very productive. The Orthodox church set up dogma to end the divisive debates, they might be wrong, but I don't think believing in monophysitism or diophytism is necessary for salvation, it just causes division.

I do agree with you about the Book of Enoch. I believe it is genuine scripture and reveals a lost doctrine that I believe to have been deliberately censored by the Roman Church and Rabbinic Judaism. An understanding of history, and the languages of the scripture show that angels did fall from Heaven and reproduce with human women. Rome likely covered this up to cover up the truth of Nephilim bloodlines that run from Babylon to Rome and to the modern world.

The Roman Empire wanted control and added various elements of its pagan religion to Christian doctrine and practice. The date of Christ's birth is one such example of inserting pagan beliefs into practice.

No arguments here. I don't think they manipulated scripture beyond censoring documents regarding the Watchers and Nephilim.

The Old Testament is of the Tanackh, a canon of the Hebrew Bible. It's always very interesting to me when people refer to writings of the Bible as the official Word of God as if it is autonomous from the authors who wrote it down. If you were to say today that something you write is the word of God, how many people would claim blasphemy? Also, there is the question of translation, as I believe that some meanings can be lost in translation say from the Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek to English, and from the King James version to say, the New King James Version. re -Psalm 138:2, KJV HomeArticlesFAQBooksVerse ChartsKJV DictionaryOnline KJVSearchContact
That link give specific examples of possible erroneous translations

You would be accused of blasphemy because the time of the prophets is over. There will be no more prophets until the two witnesses foretold in Revelations. Anyways, it's not as though the Jews didn't have standards for their prophets. There were rigid protocols in determining a prophet's claim to prophethood. And yes meanings can be lost in translation, but translators can usually find a way to get the whole meaning into the passage, by using different words. This is why I prefer literalistic translations such as the NASB over dynamic translations like the NIV. Literalistic translations are hard to understand unless you have immersed yourself in the study of Biblical language, but it's the best way to get all of the little details, which is very important for understanding prophecy. The KJV translation is far from perfect, but one can make a very good case for it. Personally I prefer my Greek/English Septuagint, because you can translate the passages yourself if you want. I do love how the KJV is written, especially in the NT which is much closer to the original Greek, which is easier to translate into English than Hebrew.

In the end, I believe we must go into the heart and find our connection with the Creator of all that is. There have indeed been some common threads in many religions. For one instance, the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is comparable to the Hindu Brahma(father, Visnu(Son), and Shiva(Holy Spirit). Kali is the Divine Mother. Why argue with these similarities? If these are common, then perhaps the nugget of truth is deeper in our reality than any one written or oral version.

My understanding of the Book of Enoch has lead me to believe that polytheism came about as a result of early human worship of the Watcher Angels, so I am wary of pagan/Christian pluralism, but you are entitled to your beliefs. The only real similarity between the Hindu trinity and the Christian is that there is three in one. The similarities end therem seeing as the personalities are in contrast whereas in the Christian Trinity, there are three personalities but one will.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
An addendum to my last post, according to wikipedia, Catholicism was declared by Rome to be the State religion, legalized in 313. Since that time the Roman Catholic church has amassed great wealth and power. Another religion which appears to be a State religion in many parts of the world is Islam. Both religious empires have desired to force upon others a demand to follow at one time or another. At risk of entering taboo subject, Zionism could comparatively be a State religion of power similar to the others, while ignoring the deeper mysticism. I tend to like the more mystical elements of all the religions. At some point, how do we separate the mystical reality from our political persuasions?

edit on 18-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: spelling

Oh and another point I forgot to address: the Roman Catholic Church capitalized more off of illiteracy than anything else. If people had been able to read the Bible (or were even allowed to) then they would have realized they were supposed to be pacifist and the crusades would have never happened.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


acharya is right, there are connections between gods, and there are astronomical metaphors. there's no doubt about it. however, that is just one layer of the data. it's what they suggest, and heavily point to, repeatedly, that needs to be understood.

i'd elaborate, but i have to be sure i have your attention first. lol

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by grizzle2

 

It sn't hard to see that the religious parts of Zeitgeist are the worst kind of appeal to the basest parts of human nature. "You are God".

Hmm, your God may disagree with you on that.

John 14 - 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto
you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works... 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you... Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
John 17:11(kjv)—Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. . .14b . . . because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. . . 21 That they may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us[.]

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Buddhaesque Nondualism, and the concept of realization of being One with 'God', or the Source or Brahman, or whatever you want to call it, appears even in the edited and selected Biblical Text designed to suit the Catholic Church. They couldn't quite erase all the evidence.

edit on 18-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

There is a very distinct difference between Theosis: orthodoxwiki.org... and Apotheosis:en.wikipedia.org...

When Ya'hshuah calls us to be one in God again, he is speaking of a return to Eden and being one with the will of God again.

the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.

Theosis is also, very different from Buddhist Nirvana and Oneness with Brahman because it does not entail an "ego-death" or an end of the self.

This is very different than the idea of apotheosis, which means to actually become a God, which is the idea that the serpent tempted Eve with:

"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and (A)you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Zeitgeist's claim that "you are God's" is well... Satanic, for lack of a better word.

undo,

"my disagreement with zeitgeist and acharya is the tendency to just relegate thousands of years of data to being nothing but lies."

That is the complete opposite of what Acharya does so, please substantiate your claim with credible evidence to support it.

"i agree with acharya that there is indeed an astronomical connection between the ancient gods mentioned in ancient texts. but i don't agree that this is ALL the information that is valid in the ancient texts"

Again, Acharya makes no such claim that is all there is. She specializes in mythology and astrotheology, which is precisely what's MISSING from the discussion. She examines a very fascinating part of human history that academia largely fails to admit even exists! She already has over 2,100 pages of text and you want her to cover everything? C'mon, no one person can possibly do that, except Jesus (kidding).

Her work plays a much larger role in the origins of religious concepts than most are aware. I love this quote from astronomer Dr. Krupp:

"At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significants. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later." - Dr. Edwin Krupp * "Suns of God" page 26 Dr. Edwin Krupp is an Astronomer and Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles www.griffithobs.org...

Here's a video of Acharya giving a lecture

reply to post by kallisti36


there's also the problem that written texts were always hoarded by the priest classes, because they took so long to copy, by hand, not to mention the creation and prep of the materials they were written on. so if it wasn't illiteracy it was language variations or lack of available copied text.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


Wow, yet again, I am very pleased to see that Acharya S agrees with herself. Call her a liar, a moron, a charlatan, but far be it from me to say she is schizophrenic.

Even if she is right about this doctrine of regaining virginity, it doesn't matter, because Devaki still had sex before that. Mary never had sex before the birth of Ya'hshuah. If Devaki was still considered a virgin in Hindu thought (and she wasn't) it doesn't matter because she wouldn't be considered a virgin in Jewish thought.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


you appear to argue that she doesn't use that as her reason to claim they are just lies meant to manipulate societies, and then cite her referencing stonehenge as being astronomical. no one is arguing that it has an astronomical connection, especially not me. but i've read all her arguments on the subject, even places on the internet she has went to, to debate her information with other researchers, sitchinites, and other people of various backgrounds. unless she's changed her position recently?

you appear to argue that she doesn't use that as her reason to claim they are just lies meant to manipulate societies

Okay, I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying.

These are two different things going on here where the two shouldn't be confused with each other.

1. Is the mountain of evidence of ancient astrotheology.

2. The evidence that religion certainly has been used to manipulate societies.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


okay and this is my position on it:

1) i agree with her that astronomy is important in understanding the whole picture. but i do not believe it is as simple as she thinks it is.

2) i do believe religions have been used to manipulate societies. i think any time you have a belief system that addresses morality, it auto enforces social engineering. this is true whether it's generally considered to be "religious" in nature or not. changing the words used to describe something, doesn't change its function, only perception of it.

can you do me a favor and recount for the readers here, what her position is on Tiamat?

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight

 

Wow, yet again, I am very pleased to see that Acharya S agrees with herself. Call her a liar, a moron, a charlatan, but far be it from me to say she is schizophrenic.

Even if she is right about this doctrine of regaining virginity, it doesn't matter, because Devaki still had sex before that. Mary never had sex before the birth of Ya'hshuah. If Devaki was still considered a virgin in Hindu thought (and she wasn't) it doesn't matter because she wouldn't be considered a virgin in Jewish thought.

I'm still waiting for an answer from you telling us exactly which books by Acharya S you've actually read? None, from what I can tell by reading your comments. You appear to get your info from biased Christian apologists like Keith TRASH who also has never actually read a book by Acharya. There would be absolutely no need for any name-calling Acharya anything if you had credible evidence to prove her wrong. You can't so you spread smears, lies and malicious attacks instead in order to poison the well because you're sooooo afraid what would happen to your beliefs were you to acknowledge that Acharya may be right on quite a bit. It's just a severe character and integrity flaw.

LOL, yeah it really does matter because in all your rants against Zeitgeist and Acharya you still refuse to be rational, reasonable and objective by actually reading what she has to say and the evidence she provides. It's intellectually dishonest. You do humanity a monumental disservice when you spread around your trash as if it's a matter of fact, all while utterly failing to understand how the ancients viewed their own religious concepts and where they originate.

Originally posted by zimishey
ahaaaa Mr Keithtruth? I was subscribed to you at youtube when your username was Nowheretorun1984. Very first time I challenged you in comments section of a video bout 2 years ago you invited me to do an interview.
I only ever have challenged your views, never insulted you personally.
Now yesterday I happened upon your new user name and a video where you were claiming tyhat Michael Tsarison had got your channel taken down, and you were whining because 'all I did was challenge his views, I never insulted him'. Ie., you were speaking up for freedom of speech---HERE HERE SIr! But then when I went to leave a comment I get 'you are blocked!' So I am wondering why?

So it is funny to find you here, if your still posting--because you cant block me

Now you believe ardently, missionarily even, that your religion is the only true one right? And historical?

Now I want to ask you --who were the early christians? You divde them up from the 'bad christians' that came after and persecuted them, right?

Your 'God's' a brutal war God? isn't HE?

I think this is relevant, because trying to prove that other mythological characters are not connected with the Jesus myth doesn't take away the fact his dad is a brutal war god does it?

edit on 18-2-2011 by zimishey because: spelling

Wait... Do you think that I am Keith Truth or is he in this thread?

(I'm not Keith Truth if that's what you are thinking)

reply to post by GoldenKnight


First of all I'm focusing on Zeitgeist claims and you've changed the topic to Acharya S (my fault too). I'm focusing on the claims of hers that I know are false, like her cruciform nonsense and virgin birth apples to oranges claims. I'm sure she's not wrong every time she opens her mouth, but the ideas she focuses on, like Christ in Egypt and the Christ Conspiracy are based off of lies and distorted information. She has this magpie-like tendency to take information from a ton of sources that apply even slightly to her view and puts them all in one place to make it look like cohesive research. She's a lot like H.P. Blavatsky in that respect.

reply to post by GoldenKnight


Also, can you stop the Ad homs with Keith Truth? They're annoying and lame. Prove him wrong.

reply to post by undo

Isn't Tiamat that theoretical planet in our solar system that was destroyed and now constitutes the asteroid belt? From what I've heard there's not enough rock in the asteroid belt to have made up a planetoid, but you can make the claim that Nasa is lying.

I'm focusing on the claims of hers that I know are false, like her cruciform nonsense and virgin birth apples to oranges claims.

LOL, you have been wrong every step of the way.

Cruciforms/Gods on Crosses
www.freethoughtnation.com...

The Virgin Birth
www.freethoughtnation.com...

The Twelve in the Bible and Ancient Mythology
www.freethoughtnation.com...

Dying and Rising Gods
www.freethoughtnation.com...

And, I'm STILL waiting to hear which books of Acharya's you've actually read. Why do you repeatedly DODGE that question? Just admit that you've never read a single book of hers.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by GoldenKnight

 

Also, can you stop the Ad homs with Keith Truth? They're annoying and lame. Prove him wrong.

edit on 18-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I apologize, is Keith TRASH your hero? You must surely realize that he is a high school drop out who has absolutely no formal training, qualifications or credentials whatsoever, right? He makes his videos out of his mums basement. This is the guy who you are heavily reliant upon who also has never actually read a single book of Acharya's.

This is the same guy who posted a youtube video calling her a "Lesbian Sex Pervert" so, before telling me to calm down or chill out, you may want to put a leash on your little dog. Even decent Christians are embarrassed by this guy and his buddy Chris White. In fact, it was Christians who demanded Keith remove the video.

Anyway, Keith has been proven wrong throughout this 9 page thread. Enjoy Keith's sock puppet. Yep, that's right he tried to pretend to be someone else and got caught.

Keith "Truth" is a useful idiot
www.freethoughtnation.com...