Posts by notverylikely

Why do I even feel like all of that COULD be right? I'm a firm believer in intuition. And I'm not educated enough in the money thing or 9-11 thing to even start to talk about it, but like I said, it resonated with me somehow. Especially the part about the media!

Because that's how they edited it. It's called "cherry picking your facts" and playing fast and loose with the details. Intuition is a GREAT tool, but it ONLY works when you have the background and experience for it to work. Clever editing and cherring picking facts and using certain images and phrases can trigger "intuition" when really...it's not. It's just then leading you to the conclusion they have already decided they want you to arrive at.

I AM educated at money and how it works and how the fed works and how big business interacts with each other. I can promise you, there is no global conspiracy. The "MAN" doesn't exist. There are people trying to push events certain ways to make money or get what they want, but there of other people pushing back and pushing sideways and upways and downways too. There are people smart enough to take advantage of bad situations look at the big picture and make money no matter what happens and when people like the creators of Zeitgeist see that, they see shadowy conspiracy when really it's a couple of smart people making a bad situation work for them.

40

Zeitgeist, just nonsense? Please explain.

by cyberjesus in

jw
friends

i recently watched the movie along with the second part thanks to several people mentioning it on this forum.

i have seen both people against and pro.

what are your thoughts?

notverylikely

I haven't seen that movie in particular, but I have heard quite a bit about it. Based on the comments of others, it seems that it takes some kernels of truth and areas where we don't quite know everything and uses a broad brush to fill on the blanks and you end up with "OMG!!! CONSPIRACY!!!11!!"

I can't even begin to imagine how they ties the Jesus-myth to 9/11 to the Federal reserve. You might as well read Gods of Eden if you want wacko conspiracies.

127

The Pagan Christ

by poopsiecakes in

jw
friends

has anyone read this book?

i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.

the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.

notverylikely

Actually, I said that I believed in the truth of Jesus teachings and example; therefore I also believe him when he said that he was the Son of God.

Thanks for the clarification, Tec. I was making the point that Jesus teachings were almost word for word the exact same as what the Babylonians were teaching thousands of years ago. So, if the point is that you beleive Jesus was the son of god due to the things that he was teaching, then why wouldn't that logic extend to people that were teaching the same things long before the Jesus?

127

The Pagan Christ

by poopsiecakes in

jw
friends

has anyone read this book?

i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.

the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.

notverylikely

Why don't you try backing up your comments with some independent scholarly research instead of just cutting and pasting everyone elses comments and responding in a tit-for-tat manner? Engaging in petty armchair polemics is just annoying.

Ok, so, I will use this line. You are setting the rules for independant scholarly research. Since you got to set those, I will add one or two of my own. The research must be up to date and non-biased. I think that is very fair.

And, as for using the cut-n-paste, it's pretty commong to do that to highlight the specific point that is being addressed. I really couldn't care less what annoys you due to your high gravity jerk content.

The idea of the dying-rising god as a parallel to the Christian concept of the death and resurrection of Christ was popularized by James Frazer in ‘The Golden Bough’, first published in 1906

OK. However, refuting a 104 year old theory using 50 year old reasearch? Bring it up to date. I kinda don't care about old theories based on old data. One might as well argue that scientists don't beleive in metorites using a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

The debate is about whether or not there are any pagan influences in the stories, teachings, myth, whatever you want to call it, regarding christ. There is a lot more up to date information we can use to talk about this.

Think about it this way...if we were going to discuss something like...cancer treatments, for instance, we wouldn't use research from 50 years ago (or even 30, or even 15), we would use the most current and up to date research and info. I would suggest we do the same here.

In fact, that the mystery religions prior to Christianity even had the tale of a dying and rising god-man is it itself a myth. Ronald Nash (2003; ‘The Gospel and the Greeks’) sums up the evidence about all these gods of the mystery religions and their alleged resurrections”

Ronald Nash is a Christian apologist. Since you specified a scholarly debate, we really can't use his agenda based research.

Nash (2003) states: “The uncompromising monotheism and the exclusiveness that the early church preached and practiced make the possibility of any pagan inroads…unlikely, if not impossible.”

Case in point....that's a very nice opinion without any facts whatsoever to back it up.

Komoszewski, James Sawyer, Wallace (2005; ‘Reinventing Jesus – what The Da Vinci Code and other novel speculations don’t tell you’)

Komoazewski is also a Christian apologist with an agenda who's other works include pushing for the deity of christ. If we want to remain scholarly as you suggest, we really shouldn't be using his works either.

It was only in later centuries that Christianity borrowed from the mystery religions.

It has already been proven that Jesus ideas were almost word for work copies of babylonia teaching from 2000 years earlier, specifically the Akkadian councils.

127

The Pagan Christ

by poopsiecakes in

jw
friends

has anyone read this book?

i haven't, but i just watched a documentary on it.

the author's premise is that the idea of jesus as a god coming to earth came out of egyptian mythology and that there is no real archeological evidence that jesus actually existed.

notverylikely

OOOOOOOOOOOK.

Where does that logic break down. tec said that she beleived Jesus was the son of god because of the the things he taught, I asked what those were, PSacramento gave me the basic gospel teachings, turns out some babylonians were teaching that 2000 years before the JC, so either he wasn' the son of god because he was re-hash some pagan teachings or they were also the son of god.

Many of the teachings that were similar to Jesus's and came before Jesus were oriented towards a small group of people or a specific culture, Jesus's message was universal, for ALL.

No to be picky, but what the heck. Jesus teaching were similiar to those other teaching since they came first. They were the originals. And those other teachings did not set a limit on who. The babylonian teaching said love your enemy. Well, the babylonians were enemies with pretty much everyone. And Jesus did 99% of his talking to jews.

The fact that the message endured and became synonymus with Jesus shows that, for whatever reason, HIS message carried more weight than those of the Babylonians.

Sorry, being puicky again. The message that Buddha preached, that the babylonians preached that Jesus later also preached. I don't know that I would say it carried more weight since, as you said, Christians have been some pretty badass "kill thy neighbor" kind of people.