ZeitGeist

This was the biggest steaming pile of dung imaginable, and with no purpose. All it was was a compilation of things that the filmakers don't personally like and want to revise actual history on.Segment after segment took tiny shreds of truth and then inserted their own version of events, thus erecting a conspiracy theory out of another conspiracy theory.That was total junk. Because it was a load of crap, I decided to call them out on it. What did I receive from their contact information? How convenient. And to think, the 10 people who have heard of Zeitgeist the movie are now overwhelming the producers, but somehow every other company can handle hundreds of transmissions a day.Then I found this... It pretty much sums it up. This was my favorite part:

Isn't that precious! How silly of us... I'm so glad that somebody has the esoteric knowledge-- the real knowledge that all of us aren't privy to or only privy to for $5.00 dollars, $2.00 for shipping and handling.I love their sources to erect their conspiracies. They just get their resources from other conspiracy nuts and then pawn it off as solid fact.

Really? Free, or sorta kinda free... the kind that actually costs money? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dvdorder.htmEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I certainly agree. I would say that disclaimer is prominently displayed because they are fully aware that they can't substantiate these claims. Since Arach has already dismantled those supposed parallels, there is no need for me to in to great depth about it. There are no considerable parallels. The film makers are relying on the ignorance of its audience to woo them in to believing their revisionist version of events. There is ample evidence that Jesus did in fact. If one wants to question his deity, they can certainly make a strong case of reasonable doubt. But that he was an actual man in human history is only contested by people who don't know where to find the extra-biblical evidentiary sources that would corroborate his existence. Arach has already gone over it, so I will just briefly reiterate. Jesus was not born on December 25. This, like most "Christian holidays," all have a strong pagan influence where the two traditions have converged in to one muddled holiday. No one is exactly certain of the exact day of Jesus' birth. But based on all accounts, it certainly was nowhere in the winter months. Do you have a reputable source that would corroborate your claim? I actually think they did a great job in the editing room. The film, as far as the art of film is concerned, was done very well. Its the information that I have considerable contention with. The film makes it all seem so easy for these grand conspiracies to come about. The collusion factor, of course, is never considered. Its so improbable to the point of hilarity. But people that sit in their basement all day, who have no idea about how the real world works, get all their information from sensationalist literature. But it doesn't make it true. I found the video to be entertaining too, especially with the dramatic and ominous sound bytes, the severe editing of speakers, the way some random guy is standing at a podium with a black curtain behind as if he's actually speaking to an audience, etc, etc. But it was the kind of interesting that I find all fictional movies-- entertainment and nothing more.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. I have every conceivable right to question the veracity of your claim, since the claims that you are making go against the prevailing historical facts.I will go so far to say that variant use of torture stakes, as crucifixes were commonly known as back then, may have been seen contemporaneously by the Medo-Persian empire.Your claim is that the ancient Egyptians invented the crucifix, is it not? If so, you are going to have to provide something that would lend any credence to the claim.The over-arching scheme here though, lets not forget, is that you are saying that the Jesus account is simply a variation of different accounts from all over the world from various times-- in particular, Horus. As Arach has already shared, the supposed facts concerning Horus on the movie are inaccurate.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

What did you get out of it? So you're a thief? I'm just messin' with you man. Obviously that is the implication that the film makers are tacitly making. We were just dumb lemmings ambling along in our simple world, totally buying in to the lies of the Establishment until they rescued us.Its kind of condescending really. As a Christian, no one is more irritated at baby Xtians that seem to have no real understanding of the gospel, and only came to their conclusions based on years of indoctrination. But that is not to say that all Christians never gave thought to how they've come to believe.If the information they were presenting were accurate, even in part, I would have appreciated it more. But now you have Arach, as well as a few others who are not in any sense of the word Christian saying the whole thing was caca. Around these parts, that is saying a lot.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

How would we know if Jesus was an actual figure of antiquity? How could we test the historicity? Well, I would say that you first have to give the benefit of the doubt-- reason being, if you challenge the historicity of Jesus, arguably the MOST prolific figure in all of human history, you would also have to consider most other figures of antiquity to be little more than fantasy.Why is it that the assumption of someone being an actual person is believed, even on scant evidence, where Jesus is immediately met with hostility? Perhaps its because of the claims He made.To that, I say, fair enough. There is good reason to question his deity. But his personhood? How does that hold up to scrutiny?Lets start off by using Occam's Razor: Virtually every myth has elements of truth in it, whereas time goes on, people add to that truth. By the end, it often winds up a muddled story where sometimes discerning fact from fiction becomes indistinguishable.Whether you think the metaphysical claims of the Bible to be hokum or not is inconsequential and superfluous. To deny that the Bible has a great historical significance is simply inject bias based on personal beliefs.Therefore, their is good reason to assume that, at least in part, the stories about Jesus found in the New Testament, with gospel after gospel, epistle after epistle, has at least some measure of truth. To deny that would mean there is some grand conspiracy to erect a figure that got people killed for professing. Why they would is anybody's guess.You have to ask yourself what they gained from it, especially since writing what they wrote would have taken a long time. I presume you realize that they didn't have ball point pens or typewriters with neatly printed paper in those days. Annotating information was an arduous process in and of itself.But lets say that the entire New Testament, from start to finish, is completed invented for no good reason-- that they sacrificed their very lives to keep this fantasy going.You still have to take in to account the myriad of extra-biblical sources, who thought poorly of Jesus, in to account. Perhaps you are unaware that various writers of those days wrote about Jesus, and in less than desirable terms no less. Why would they corroborate a story> Isn't far more reasonable, again, using Occam's Razor, that Jesus was in fact an actual person in history?On what basis do you doubt his existence-- a personal loathing of it?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Is it completely out of the question that you are incapable of grasping the concept? You have to consider your alternative, because there are a few points that need to be addressed. Have a listen.

The conclusion

As C.S. Lewis poignantly explains, there are only three possibilities about Jesus. Either he was deluded, a liar, or was exactly what he said he was. You are coming about this from the standpoint of ignorance. You've felt nothing significant. Have you ever actually committed yourself to any kind of real investigation? Have you ever earnestly sought God? Or do you come with hostility and incredulity? Do you expect to be receptive with such a stance?There is a dichotomy-- a crux of sorts. In order to know God, you must come with faith. In order to have that faith, you must have a reason for believing in the first place. And so you find yourself wondering. But have you ever noticed within your heart the questions you ask concerning the existential? Whom are the arguments made against? Is it not the Judeo-Christian God? You seem so troubled about it, which only leads me to wonder how little you actually do disbelieve. What shred of hope still lingers in you. And how do you know that isn't God? The reasons are listed why they did as they did. Jesus exposed them, just like he exposes us. And we hate being called out on our sins. We despise it. Acknowledging Jesus is the acknowledging of all of our faults and hang-ups. We'd rather pretend it doesn't exist. Are you even aware that you are really just looking for something to confirm what you wanted to affirm? Listen to what you just said: You don't even care if its the truth or not. You want to believe in Zeitgeist, and so you shall. Reminds of something else I've read in the past.“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed that it had none and was without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to provide no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation I desired was simultaneously liberation from certain political and economic system and liberation from sexual morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” -Alduous Huxley Except that you have a chicken and an egg problem. Everything that exists is due to causation. You only exist because your parents procreated, who exist because their parents procreated, and so on. The casual inference of man in his understanding is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot, in it’s own right, actualize itself. In the case of the universe, whether we speak of boundary lines, fixed points or the infinite, there was not anything prior, to the singularity.How do you reconcile those notions without evoking something beyond the material?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Then you would have to apply your rationale to every human being that has come and gone since you didn't physically witness them write it. You know as well as I do that we base history upon reasonable assumptions. I say reasonable because most knowledge is an assumption. In some small way it gives credence to nihilists. And if nihilists believe that there is no justification for any knowledge claims, it should not take long to see the fatal flaw in their basic premise. How can the nihilist even purport such a claim if he hasn’t the ability to know that knowledge is unattainable? If knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives any justification to question or make truth claims? If you thought the quote was about sex, then you missed the over-arching theme. The theme is that he wants to believe in something for personal reasons rather than logical reasons-- something atheists commonly, and vociferously, charge against theists, which I find both interesting and hypocritical.You heard what Spektical wrote. Paraphrasing, he said he didn't matter to him whether it was actually true or not. All that mattered was it conformed to what he wanted to believe it was about.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Fair enough. I concur with your reasoning. Sure He did. But you will just rely on the fact that the gospels could be inaccurate. So what difference will it make to you?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

You have no beliefs, whatsoever??? Are you kidding me? Do you believe your parents love you? Do you believe that one day your dog, Shep, will die? Do you believe you will wake up tomorrow? You have much faith in many things. To live without a measure of faith is an unlivable life full of total obscurity. Of course you have beliefs. If you'd like to quote us so you can respond, copy the text, hit the reply button and paste it. If you want to know the html codes, hit the peek function so you can see how its done.An option to what that I haven't provided? What are you referencing? What does this have to do with anything that I said? The fact that He went through is precisely to expose the very reason for our need of Him. ................................? I'm not following you. Its a way of personifying that which has no physical personhood. Why do they refer to ships as a "she?" Of course God isn't a He or a She or even an It. These are quaint definitions for our benefit, simply because it is difficult to conceptualize God. I do not ascribe to the notion of an anthropomorphic God-- that is to say, that I do not believe He has literal human features. While it is true that the Bible makes mention of human characteristics, it is purely metaphorical. When the Bible refers to God as a ”He’ or ”Him’, this is an allegorical approach of personifying that which has no physical personhood; or at the very least, that which has no need of a physical personhood.Rather than wondering where God is, I wonder where isn't God. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

You just quoted me on it.

quote:

---

The theme is that he wants to believe in something for personal reasons rather than logical reasons-- something atheists commonly, and vociferously, charge against theists, which I find both interesting and hypocritical

---

.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Since we don't have any evidence to the contrary, I hardly see how its not a legitimate question. What was "snide" about it? I was just illustrating a point. Only if you want to. *shrugs*

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

quote:

---

But you will just rely on the fact that the gospels could be inaccurate. So what difference will it make to you?

---

I was saying that if I answer the question below, you can simply rely on your incredulity concerning the accuracy of the Bible. If I give you scripture that backs up Jesus claiming to be God, you may attempt to rely on this. So, again, will it really matter either way for me to provide a scriptural basis?

quote:

---

Sure He did.

---

The trinitarian concept (3=1):"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

​

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

​

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

​

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

​

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." -John 1:1-14"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." -John 10:30-33"They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I AM." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips." -Luke 22:70-71"I am he," Jesus said. And Judas the traitor was standing there with them. When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground." -John 18:5"God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" -Exodus 3:14“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” -Philippians 2:5-11God is Jesus, Jesus is God.Which is consistent with the prophecies concerning the messiah:“But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting.” -Micah 5:2“For unto us, a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His Name will be called, ”Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’ Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” -Isaiah 9:6-7

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Because its homologous with all other sources, its consistent, it stands up to prophecy, etc. There is no single reason to believe it, but a plethora of varying reasons. Nonsense... None of those reasons legitimately justify anything. You know exactly how I should act, what I should believe, what I can or cannot do, because you have the exact moral schematic I ascribe to. And you should hold me accountable to them. With you, and those of your ilk, there is nothing clear about it, which allows for you to sit on a perch of moral superiority because no one can identify exactly what it is you ascribe to from a moral framework. Nothing in your world is concrete. You can easily change them on a whim based on whatever fanciful ideas you want. I have no such luxury, which is fine with me, because I prefer being consistent. Perhaps not inherently or specifically, but that is the undeniable outcome. You can't have positive evidence of a negative. Atheism isn't merely declaring a lack of belief. It is an affirmation, in the positive, that God does not exist. And if you think about it objectively, being an atheist is actually an impossible act. It is because of this that the terms "weak" or "strong" atheists, which basically is an invented term that is no different from agnosticism, except that they get to retain the coveted title of atheist. You mean lack of evidence, not evidence. If something doesn't exist, there is no evidence, not evidence to the contrary.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Normally I reply in sequential order, but this one needs to be addressed now. You shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. Who said that I was done with my explanations? Here you go:Flavius Josephus:

Tacitus: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate. A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular . And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps . people began to pity these sufferers, because, they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.”Pliny the Younger: “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor dent a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”Babylonian Talmud: (33 AD) This is the actual recording by the very men that ordered the execution of Jesus. *Take note of His charge*“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ”He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” Therefore, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificently, as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law.“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ”Cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” -Galatians 3:13Lucian: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures’s start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them. And then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and to deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they quite take on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” I'm not religious. Instead of religiosity, I opt for a relationship with God. Where others expect to reach God, I expect God to reach me through person of Yeshua. Yes, yes it does... Alleluia! Perhaps the delusion is all on your side of the table. Have you ever considered that possibility? How does my belief in God negate the INFINITE beauty and mystery of life, as opposed to enhancing it? "...alright then, have it your way." -C.S. Lewis"Son of man, listen carefully and take to heart all the words I speak to you. Go now to your countrymen in exile and speak to them. Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says,' whether they listen or fail to listen...

​

When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself." -excerpts from Ezekiel 3Translation: "Those to whom it is given to preach the gospel are not responsible for its acceptance by their hearers. If men do receive the Word in faith, it becomes to them a savor unto life; if they refuse to obey it, it is death unto death." -H.A. Ironside

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Oh, you know that for certain because you can crawl inside their mind? Think about it Spektical. Lets say you are married and your pretty, little wife tells you all the time that she loves you, and pours out her affection for you. But you don't know that she loves you in the same way that you know that you love her. You believe it, based on what you have gleaned as credible information. Well, its the same with me and God.You seem to think that "faith" only encompasses blind faith. It does not. There is blind faith, and then there is an informed faith. Your parents love for you comes from an informed faith. Do you really not understand the difference? Of course you have beliefs, don't be silly. And you say all of this right after you laud Zeitgeist, even after stating that you don't care whether or not its true. I am truly astonished. And you know all of this as an objective fact, or are you basing it on something you deem to be plausible? Because he is reputed to be sinless... Anyone else dying on the cross is people who were tortured and murdered. What makes the death, burial, and resurrection was that it came from the spotless lamb our passover, who atoned for OUR sins. I think you need to go read the scriptures and understand these very basic Judeo-Christian principles before you go on maligning something you have only a nominal familiarity with. You know, whether or not God is real is pretty inconsequential to why humans would assume such a deity exists. Clearly, there is some evolutionary reason, all natural of course, for why the masses have always felt connected to this. Why then scoff at it, as if nature was conspiring against us? I have in the past when I was a staunch cynic, and I still do as a Believer. Maybe you should heed your own advice though. We should always try a spoonful of our own medicine before telling others to take it.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias