Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Religion _ "zeitgeist's" Interpretation Of Christianity

Posted by: painter Aug 27 2007, 06:22 PM

In a different thread, different forum, Cary wrote, addressing Natasha:

QUOTE (Cary @ Aug 27 2007, 01:08 PM)
Natasha,

No problem.  You won't be banned, and insults and taunting your way won't be tolerated here.

I respect your personal views on the bible, God and Jesus.  I, however, don't share your religious/spiritual beliefs in the bible and Jesus.  I was raised as a catholic.  Gave up what I call "the magic show" when I was in high school.  Too much hypocrisy and conflicting bullshit.  Have you seen the video, "Zeitgeist - The Movie"?  The video is well researched and shows that the story of Jesus is an amalgam of a couple dozen previous religions that worship the "sun god."  I've done some amount of research on the claims about Jesus and haven't found anything that conflicts the video.  I'm not saying I've researched every little claim in the video, and I'm claiming "the truth" here.  Just saying I've been turned off to organized religion for a long time, and that my intuitive understanding of God, higher power, etc. does not jive with the bible or christianity.  Doesn't make me right, just means I have a different understanding than you do about all this.  In my interpretation, the bible was written by men long after Jesus, if he's real, was alive.  These writings were then bastardized by the Council of Nicea under Emperor Constantine of Rome in the third century.  "Zeitgeist" does a great job of showing that the bible is an astrological story about the churning of heavenly bodies, with our sun being a major player.

Sorry if this is unsettling for you.  That's not my intention.  Here's a link to "Zeitgeist" if you're interested in watching it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331


Not wanting to take the original thread fruther off topic, I'd like to reply to this post here.

One of the many things I've done in my life is studied, not exhaustively or academically but for personal reasons, comparative religion -- and in particular what might best be called 'esoteric' ideas. In my opinion, one of the things that the movie Zeitgeist (which, over all, I appreciate) does not make clear is that sacred texts, such as the Bible, have LEVELS of meaning and interpretation. One author who wrote about this exhaustively from an unorthodox Egyptologist perspective was http://www.innertraditions.com/Contributor.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=240. In her book, "http://www.amazon.com/Temple-Man-Sacred-Architecture-Perfect/dp/0892810211 in which she describes her exhaustive study of the Egyptian Temple of Luxor, she presents the argument that ancient temples can be read and understood as sacred texts[i]; that the "content" of these "texts" is not only in the hieroglyphics found on the temple walls, but in the architectural elements and mathematical relationships of the physical temple itself. She even explains that often the walls of more ancient temples were deconstructed (literally) and the texts upon them were either inserted into new locations (a stone 'copy and paste' if you will) or, sometimes, actually placed behind the visible walls in the masonry cavity.

The point being made here is a complex one. The fundamental idea is that a "sacred text" (whether made out of stone or parchment) is a complex relationship of ideas that were meant to shape the understanding of those who were capable of 'reading' the text. 'Sacred texts' were [i]sacred
precisely because they were NOT to be taken literally but were, instead, to be read as, more than a mere 'representation', an actual miniature manifestation of the cosmos. Hidden within this thought is that the cosmos itself is a teaching and that everything within it is also 'a teaching' just as any part of a fragmented hologram contains within it the whole, just as any specific point of a fractal contains within itself a representation of the whole fractal of which it is a part. In fact, these 'parts' can not, actually be separated out one from the other. From this admittedly quite complicated point of view, then, not only is the cosmos a teaching but so is Man (collectively) and a man (individually).

For this reason, although it is true that pre-Christian Solar Diety worship is imbedded within the Bible as a text, it would not be accurate to either say or suggest that this is the full and exhaustive meaning apprehensible http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4643&view=findpost&p=7894218. The meaning apprehensible in any truly sacred text is necessarily limited by the level of the being apprehending it. This has nothing to do with wether or not a particular story or fable is literally true or historically accurate, it has to do with the ability of human beings to grow in knowledge and develop in awareness and being such that things that were previously 'hidden' (beyond one's scope) become accessible. In fact, the struggle to 'understand' a genuine sacred text should be accompanied by an equal, inner struggle to understand the full functioning of the human organism (especially one's own) and the greater cosmos (on all its levels) of which it and its functioning is a microcosm.

Posted by: Zapzarap Aug 28 2007, 05:06 AM

When I watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time I honestly was turned off by their interpretation of Christianity.

Not because I am so deeply religious.
(I grew up Catholic but left the Church when I was a student - actually for reasons like http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8622&view=findpost&p=9869558).

I suspected that Zeitgeist was deliberately attacking Christianity to label the 9/11 movement as 'anti-Christian' (we are allready used to the 'anti-Semitism-label).

But on closer inspection their arguments are well founded.

I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it. It will however turn off religious people like Natasha.

Another thing is, that the titel "Zeitgeist" is slightly misleading if you know the meaning of the German word:
Zeitgeist = spirit of the age, is used in German with a negative undertone for the cultural, political, scientifical, emotional decadence of our 'Western' Society.

Where are the religious Christians on this forum?

(after Tocarm wink.gif )

Posted by: Carl Bank Aug 28 2007, 05:27 AM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 11:06 AM)
Another thing is, that the titel "Zeitgeist" is slightly misleading if you know the meaning of the German word:
Zeitgeist = spirit of the age, is used in German with a negative undertone for the cultural, political, scientifical, emotional decadence of our 'Western' Society.

Possibly in Austria, Peter. I don't know.

But here in germany it is used absolutely without a
positive nor negative connotation. It is just used for
the spirit of the age and the actual time period.
The fact that the actual time preiod is indeed decadent
has got no influence on the meaning of the expression 'Zeitgeist' here.

Even the most important german weekly "Der SPIEGEL"
got a 'Zeitgeist' section on its english online issue:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,,00.html

Carl

Posted by: Natasha Aug 28 2007, 05:32 AM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 04:06 AM)
When I watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time I honestly was turned off by their interpretation of Christianity.

Not because I am so deeply religious.
(I grew up Catholic but left the Church when I was a student - actually for reasons like http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8622&view=findpost&p=9869558).

I suspected that Zeitgeist was deliberately attacking Christianity to label the 9/11 movement as 'anti-Christian' (we are allready used to the 'anti-Semitism-label).

But on closer inspection their arguments are well founded.

I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it. It will however turn off religious people like Natasha.

Another thing is, that the titel "Zeitgeist" is slightly misleading if you know the meaning of the German word:
Zeitgeist = spirit of the age, is used in German with a negative undertone for the cultural, political, scientifical, emotional decadence of our 'Western' Society.

Where are the religious Christians on this forum?

(after Tocarm  wink.gif )

I am not religious. I attend no church. Jesus is in my thoughts every minute, and my attention is always inclined to hear His voice within me. I hate religion, and there is no temple or house, no building or earthly organization, that is either a church or the church. Heaven is His thrown, and yet we His people are His dwelling, even His body here. I am above no other person. I am weak, flawed, foolish, and dim of mind having also a poor memory. I have nothing at all in this world, as one who but visits or passes through, and I have no one but Him to rely upon and neither do I trust any other.

I have seen the movie in question. It lumps all Christians in with organized religion, Neocon Xians, Reagan666/BushCIA and other such garbage. My opinion is that the "history" it misuses, to dismiss my faith as fraudulent, is falsely interpreted with tremendous bias.

The Talmud, while certainly not pro Christian, yet makes many references to Jesus Christ. The Jewish orthodoxy of the time, who's writings were incorporated into the Talmud, refers to Jesus as a blasphemer whom they handed over to Roman authority, to be put to death. If Jesus did not even really exist, as some falsely claim, then just who were the Pharisees writing about?

Posted by: Carl Bank Aug 28 2007, 06:03 AM

QUOTE (Natasha @ Aug 28 2007, 11:32 AM)
The Talmud, while certainly not pro Christian, yet makes many references to Jesus Christ. The Jewish orthodoxy of the time, who's writings were incorporated into the Talmud, refers to Jesus as a blasphemer whom they handed over to Roman authority, to be put to death. If Jesus did not even really exist, as some falsely claim, then just who were the Pharisees writing about?

I once learned, that it is widespread believed in the jewish
religion and also written down in the Talmud, that one day
a direct son/grandson of David will return to Israel and that
he will be the king of all jews, like David was.

Jesus' bloodline, some say, can be followed back directly
to David. So that this Jesus would be automaticly the king of all Jews
and the entire region. No need to ask, if this was in favour of the
leading Pharisees, their church and admin system or the occupieing Romans.
It was certainly not.

That could be the reason, why they crucified him and put that bumpersticker-joke
'INRI' on his cross above his head. For all who don't know: It is the acronym for
'IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM' or " JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS"
or -in the words of the meaning of this joke-
"This is what happens if someone tries again to pretend to be some
kind of David's son and to anyone who claims to be your king without
our permission."

IMO, this historical event was mixed up by the Romans with that astrological
adoration of the sun and its movements to create a story we can read
-more or less edited several times over the centuries- in the Bible.

€0.02: Carl

Posted by: Natasha Aug 28 2007, 07:08 AM

Dodge this. No, really, please do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeS2j7yK66k, it's already available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FD3e3GUIAo, count on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz94mXIYdAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbgiM7rhsmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwTa0jsWU1Y


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATC0Ouea7uc


Lets see you spin that as sun worship.

Posted by: Carl Bank Aug 28 2007, 07:45 AM

QUOTE (Natasha @ Aug 28 2007, 01:08 PM)
Dodge this. No, really, please do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeS2j7yK66k, it's already available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FD3e3GUIAo, count on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz94mXIYdAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbgiM7rhsmc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwTa0jsWU1Y


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATC0Ouea7uc


Lets see you spin that as sun worship.

Natasha, thank you for the links, I already had a look at your youtbe-site.

Unfortunately, I cannot see your point in asking me to
"spin" the these vids to 'sun worship"... blink.gif

Maybe, it is because english isn't my native tongue
(as you certainly already recognized), maybe it is because
my gut tells me, that you feel offended by the idea that
the story of Jesus could be a political story, developed to
manipulate the people and to gain power. I wholeharly understand
if this hurts your feeling and i apologize 1000 times if I did with my post.

You are free to believe whatever you want. It is up to you and noone
on this board or somewhere else in this world should be allowed to
hurt you and your believes.

But I refuse to believe in something that doesn't feel true.

The Bible doesn't and the story of jesus as it is told doesn't do either.

If you would know a little more about me, you'd possibly excuse me
for that. Maybe you should have a look at this pinned thread in the
debate-forum: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2655&st=0

In addition to this, I'd like to add that in '91 I was clinical dead and reanimated
2 times (motorcycle) and have seen, what happenes after.
And I learned a lot about human nature and god.
It is way to much to tell here. Just one thing that is essential for the understanding
of god and His creation is:

If there is a God - and there is certainly more than only one - he got
a huge sense of humor.

Carl

Posted by: Zapzarap Aug 28 2007, 07:51 AM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Aug 28 2007, 11:27 AM)
Possibly in Austria, Peter. I don't know.

[off-topic]

nonono.gif I don't read the Spiegel nor do I watch ARD, RTL and Co.
And we speak GERMAN in Austria.
PMd you, my friend.
[/off-topic]

Posted by: Carl Bank Aug 28 2007, 08:09 AM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Aug 28 2007, 11:27 AM)
Possibly in Austria, Peter. I don't know.

[off-topic]

nonono.gif I don't read the Spiegel nor do I watch ARD, RTL and Co.
And we speak GERMAN in Austria.
PMd you, my friend.
[/off-topic]

meaning of post possibly lost in re-translation, buddy?

Re-PMed you: Carl

Posted by: Zapzarap Aug 28 2007, 08:15 AM

cheers.gif

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Aug 31 2007, 04:30 AM

QUOTE
In my opinion, one of the things that the movie Zeitgeist (which, over all, I appreciate) does not make clear is that sacred texts, such as the Bible, have LEVELS of meaning and interpretation.


This brings something to my mind- a little bit of food for the mind, so to speak:

I'm fairly sure that most people will have heard the story of Alexander the great and the Gordic knot at one point or another.
If not, i'll give a quick rundown:
When Alexander reached the city of Gordion, he visited the temple of Helios there.
The priests showed him an ancient chariot, the wheels of which had been tied together with an artful knot, and explained that it was the chariot of Helios himself.
They then told Alexander that whosoever could open the knot would become lord of the universe: By being able to drive Helios' chariot, he would 'become' Helios.
Alexander tried to open the knot, but couldn't;
eventually he drew his sword and cut the knot with it.

The interesting thing about that story comes when making a connection to ancient Egypt.
There is an Egyptian word- "Bari", which means "Chariot".
The Chariot is the vehicle with which the Greek sungod Helios was supposed to travel across the sky.
But Bari also has another meaning: "Boat"- and a boat is the vehicle with which the Egyptian sungod Ra travels across the sky.
Both can be tied up with an "artful knot".
The reason why this might be relevant is that in antiquity, Egypt was the yardstick by which wisdom was measured. Stories like the one about the Gordic knot were not told for entertainment, but to convey wisdom. The Greek philosophers all had one thing in common: They all spend some time at the great library and the museion in Alexandria- founded shortly after Alexanders death. They always used the Greek names of gods, even when talking about their Egyptian counterparts.
That story is not about Helios' Chariot, but about Ra's boat.
The Egyptians had an expression: "To open a knot". That had not much to do with Christmas-presents, but with books: "Ba" means "Book", "Ri" describes a Book-cord. (Egyptian books were scrolls, tied by means of a book-cord: in an "artful knot"...)
The expression was used in respect of a difficult passage in a book: Once the passage is finally understood, the reader was said to have "opened the knot".
It meant that he had broken a seal and accessed the true meaning of the text.
Alexander was said to be quite educated. To the Egyptians, he was an analphabet:
He could not read or write hieroglyphics. Therefore he could not open the knot...
He was meant to understand the meaning of the texts in order to become king of Egypt, and ruler of the universe. He couldn't- so he opened the knot by the sword: He conquerred Egypt. He tried to conquer the world. And he failed.
After his death, he was returned to Alexandria, where a special mausoleum was constructed. His body was placed into a crystal sarcophagus, immersed in honey.
There was a time in Egypt when children who had been either still-born or who had died just after birth were buried in vessels filled with honey. The Egyptians associated honey with the sweetnes of truth: Placing a dead child in a vessel filled with honey meant that the child would forever be surrounded by sweetness.
That is how Alexander was buried: Like a still-born child.
When Julius Caesar visited the mausoleum, he broke out in tears.
That is what happens when someone is confronted with the realisation that his life is an illusion...Cajus Julius was walking down the same path as Alexander.
The sacred texts of the Egyptians had several levels of understanding- the first of which comes with the ability to read and write hieroglyphics.
The other six are hidden; each level is more difficult to unravel than the previous one. A very artful knot indeed...

Posted by: lunk Sep 6 2007, 07:48 PM

"The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy"
by Douglas Adams, is my sacred text.
(The book, the original BBC TV series,
even the radio play, but not the movie.)

imho, lunk

Posted by: Carl Bank Sep 6 2007, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Sep 7 2007, 01:48 AM)
"The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy"
by Douglas Adams, is my sacred text.
(The book, the original BBC TV series,
even the radio play, but not the movie.)

imho, lunk

2nd on this: Carl

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 6 2007, 10:38 PM

quoting Zap:

QUOTE
I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it.


Here's why I think the author of the movie included this. Looking at his book source list, I noticed the Book Rule by Secrecy was among those listed. In that book Jim Marrs traces "conspiracy theory" writings and opinions further and further back in history. Eventually, he gets back to Sumerian mythology and the ET hypotheses surrounding that. A very fascinating read and very well written and compiled from numerous sources. Saves a lot of reading to simply read Jim Marr's book instead of trying to sift through all his sources.
But anyway, point being this- there's no way a two hour movie could attempt what Marr's book has done. I think the author's intention by spending some time on Christianity was to pave the way for the idea that myth creation is not a new phenomenon. That way, when we come to Zelikow's expertise on "the creation and maintenance of public myths" the audience is then prepared to say "ah, nothing new under the sun". If one led off with Zelikow, the audience would be more likely to go "Wait, wait! How could we have been lied to? That would be unprecedented."

The Jesus angle is IMO shrewd because it is one of if not the primary "myth" of our age (whether or not one believes it or not or whether or not one believes it to be mythical doesn't really matter in that assessment) and has been used to justify a lot of unpleasantness. It's also an easier pill for most people to swallow than long lived reptilian aliens.

So, that's my opinion on the choice for introductory material. And hidden teachings there are indeed. Unfortunately, one has historically needed to belong to an unbroken mystery school tradition to grok them in fullness, I think. However, I also think that is now changing/changed. The doors are opened/opening.
Nonetheless, trying to read an archaic (or modern) English translation of something which has come from Hebrew through Greek and Latin and expecting to get all the puns, gematria, Kabbala, astronomical/astrological/cultural references intact through "divine translation assistance" or some such is IMO a wee bit naive.
Jesus- whether or not he actually existed- was a product of his times, just as we are.
How would John of Patmos (perhaps under the infuence of an hallucinogenic substance) have interpreted a supercomputer? As a beast, perhaps? RFID, retinal scans and ATM cards? The mark required to buy and sell in the marketplace?
Or, perhaps it wasn't "divine revelation" after all- more like human machinations designed to "fulfill the prophesies"?

Anyway, enough rambling on from me for now. doh1.gif whistle.gif

Posted by: waterdancer Sep 6 2007, 10:42 PM

QUOTE (Carl Bank @ Sep 7 2007, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (lunk @ Sep 7 2007, 01:48 AM)
"The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy"
by Douglas Adams, is my sacred text.
(The book, the original BBC TV series,
even the radio play, but not the movie.)

imho, lunk

2nd on this: Carl

42 is a sacred text no question, but IMO Good Omens trumps it...
Though I think I actually prefer holistic detecting to thumbing the hyperspace bypasses.

Posted by: Carl Bank Sep 7 2007, 08:44 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Sep 7 2007, 04:42 AM)
Though I think I actually prefer holistic detecting to thumbing the hyperspace bypasses.

biggrin.gif Yep! Dirk Gently is a very wise character!

also 2nd for 'The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul': Carl

Posted by: lunk Sep 7 2007, 11:36 PM

Agreed!
However I do believe that
the improbability generator
is the greatest literary device
ever invented.

Cheese is nice!
lunk

Posted by: lunk Sep 16 2007, 12:15 AM

oops, I lunked up.

That should read, "infinite improbability drive".

I can't even quote my own sacred text right.

Posted by: FM258 Nov 2 2007, 08:39 PM

Im finally 42 smokin.gif

Posted by: painter Nov 2 2007, 10:01 PM

QUOTE (FM258 @ Nov 2 2007, 04:39 PM)
Im finally 42 smokin.gif

Yeah, but have you ever been . . . beautiful spin.gif

Posted by: lunk Nov 17 2007, 07:50 PM

QUOTE (painter @ Nov 2 2007, 06:01 PM)
Yeah, but have you ever been . . . beautiful spin.gif

Do you mean the fundamental inter-connectedness
of everything that happens after the blinding flash
followed by the icky black nothingness?

Posted by: painter Nov 17 2007, 08:01 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 17 2007, 03:50 PM)
QUOTE (painter @ Nov 2 2007, 06:01 PM)

Yeah, but have you ever been . . . beautiful spin.gif

Do you mean the fundamental inter-connectedness
of everything that happens after the blinding flash
followed by the icky black nothingness?

I guess you could say that. However, the 'icky black nothingness' part is a bit problematic. Indicates to my mind something other than nothingness, specifically a negative projection into its misapprehension. Nothingness is neither black nor icky -- any more than it is either empty or void.

"Refreshing" might be a better word. trip.gif

Posted by: lunk Nov 17 2007, 11:59 PM

Yes, the void, where nothing and no one exists,
and you think yourself truly alone.

It felt/seemed like icky black nothingness to me.

A humbling experience...
lunk

Posted by: Philadelphia Nov 24 2007, 12:31 PM

Ideas that claim to 'debunk Christianity' but which list, for example, similarities between its articles of faith and the beliefs of various ancient mystery religions) are irrelevant, since similarities between the two are not disputed, even by Christians. It's because similarities exist and because there was a global expectation of Christ coming in to the world that is one of the chief reasons for the amazing and widespread acceptance of the Christian religion. Never was a global truth more keenly anticipated by mankind.

But the difference between paganism and Christianity is that Christianity is NOT A MYSTERY RELIGION. It's a REVEALED RELIGION. And that's the whole point. Christianity marks the end of mystery religion by the arrival of revealed truth. This arrival of a revealed religion also explains the decline and fall of paganism, the collapse of useless philosophies and the arrival of the freedoms and liberties we today take for granted. All of these are products of the widespread acceptance of Christianity as a revealed religion.

Finally, there is of course a huge difference between the CHURCH and CHRISTIANITY. Not to recognise this fact and not to distinguish between these two is to remain grossly ignorant of what Christianity is and what it is not.

Posted by: Sanders Nov 24 2007, 01:15 PM

While I'm not religious, I found your (Philadelphia's) post pretty profound. You have been doing your homework IMO thumbsup.gif .

I hesitate to criticize the film Zeitgeist, because I agree with it's basic premise (perceived reality is built on a bed of lies), and I feel it was made with pure intentions and a lot of heart. I love the film. But, unfortunately, it bases some of it's conclusions on bad info. The whole Horus/Jesus connection is simply not factual. Google "Horus" and "resurection", or "Isis" and "virgin", or any number of other supposed correlations and you won't find anything except posts and pages about Zeitgeist refuting his claims. Isis wasn't a virgin, she concieved Horus by screwing Osiris, who's body she had just re-constituted from 14 pieces that Set had ripped apart and strewn all over Egypt. If necrophilia counts as divine conception, than I guess you could go along with Peter's notion - but only if you ignore Horus' siblings as well. The December 25 thing doesn't wash either, it's not mentioned in Egyptology, nor is the date even set forth in the bible as the date Jesus' birth - forget about if those calenders correspond with ours or not - so, this is very misleading. I almost forgive it, since I do find the 3 day death/resurection - winter solstice connection interesting and compelling, but Zeitgeist weaves a tale that, while seductive and seemingly authoritative, isn't based on solid research - a lot of the stated factoids in part one are, I hate to say it, seemingly made up.

QUOTE
Christianity marks the end of mystery religion


This is our big problem - I know what you are saying, and in one breath nod my head in agreement, but then I think about it for a second and realise, that, no, actually Christianity (or Jeudaism for that matter) didn't mark the end of mystery religion - rather, "mystery religion" became truly mysterious and went underground, and is still with us. (& If one's breeding permits, they might even be able to get in to Bohemian Grove in the summer to watch the show!)

Posted by: Philadelphia Nov 24 2007, 05:50 PM

Yes, Sanders, but your reference to Bohemia Grove only makes the distinction between paganism and Christianity clearer. The beliefs of those who go there are hidden, kept away from public access or accountability, resting on mysticism and things that are not revealed. But there's nothing hidden in Christianity. All is revealed. All is accessible. There is no veil between you and truth itself. That's the difference between truth and error, between night and day, and between good and evil. The wonderful thing is 'these things were not done in a corner but were done openly, and in the light of day'. So one is hidden behind mysticism and the other is revealed. It's precisely this which is the greatest feature of Christianity. Its hallmark.

Posted by: Sanders Nov 25 2007, 12:52 AM

Possibly I didn't communicate well enough, I agree completely with you Philadelphia (in general terms - I quantify my statement only because I know the Catholic Church keeps all kinds of stuff hidden - but I also understand that that's not what you're talking about).

salute.gif

Posted by: Philadelphia Nov 25 2007, 07:04 AM

There is the argument the different church denominations share so much in common that consistency in matters of faith is to be found in only one of them, the ancient creeds of the Roman Catholic Church. This is known as the ecumenical argument. A rather similar argument is used by the makers of'Zeitgeist'. They tell us there are such striking similarities in different beliefs from pagan antiquity onwards there's nothing really distinctive in Christianity.

But I disagree. Imagine a forger who makes banknotes. His aim is not to make 9 dollar notes. He makes 10 dollar notes. He aims to make them so close to real ones there's really little difference between the two. On paper. And yet we cannot accept forgeries. Can we ? It's clear that forgers make products that are hard to distinguish from real ones. So the fact that things can sound very similar at a superficial level is not good reason to be bound by the ecumenical movement. Truth and error are often so close to one another by design that we do well NOT to be deceived.

The true test, of course, is that the Christian faith is not static. It's not identified by creeds or tradition. It faithfully bears record to the day in which we live. Not to an age that is passed. It's dynamic and it resists oppression. It is not enforced by secular governments. It's an attitude we take as individuals, and it is liberty. The churches are (or have become) a form of bondage. That's why their history is very different from that of Christianity.

But that's why the most deceiving of them all claims to be the TRUTH itself. It isn't. No church is the truth. But let others bind themselves together. That's churchianity.

Posted by: lunk Nov 26 2007, 04:08 AM

Myth is good if it's known to be a fiction.
History is good if it's known to be fact.

Myth parading as actual history is
very disastrous,
and proving to be so.

imo, lunk

Posted by: Nunyabiz Mar 5 2008, 04:54 PM

Don't even know where to begin on this.
I guess first I should say that I myself have studied various religions though mostly the big 3 because they are all related and the most prevalent for over 32 years now.
I first started this in order to solidify in my mind to MY satisfaction whether or not religion in any of its many forms has any basis in factual reality which is where I reside and wish to stay.
To date I have found nothing whatsoever to change my perception of any & all religions.
In fact what I have discovered through out the last 32 years have only 100% cemented my convictions concerning religious "belief".

I will start with Painters post, in general BOTH Painter & Cary are correct in what they are saying depending on how one interprets it.

Cary is correct in that "Jesus is basically just yet another version of the Sun god" "the writings were bastardized by the Council of Nicaea" "and that the Bible is an Astrological drama with the Sun as a central figure" these are all true and easily proven by mountains of Archaeological evidence.

Painter is correct in that the Bible along with many other religious text are just "esoteric ideas" and have "many levels of meaning and interpretation" (this one being one of the main reasons why religion in all its forms has caused so much death, hatred, wars, genocide etc.) I believe what Painter is alluding to is what was known as the "Inner & Outer Mystery Schools" which was THE main reason for virtually all religious text prior to Christian orthodoxy squashing Gnosticism which was basically around the time of the Nicene Creed (325CE).
In fact that was pretty much one of the main reasons that Constantine commissioned the first canonized Bible through the Council of Nicaea.
Constantine wanted control of the masses and every where he went in every church in every pagan temple etc the masses were 'interpreting" all of these many text in hundreds of different ways. There were I believe at least 56 main "Gospels" plus numerous other texts and most all were highly contradictory and most all interpreted the "divine being" whether it be Baalam, Yeshu, The Teacher of Richeousness, and in later text "Iesous" (AKA Jesus, the actual name Jesus did not even exist until about 500 years ago) as just a "spirit" not a REAL being.

Iesous was without any doubt just a continuation of the many previous "Sun Gods", all of these religions were based in Astrology, Numerology and so forth.
There was never any such "real" person as any "Jesus of Nazareth" this is without any question a purely fictional character.
The NT is clearly an Astrological Drama written in the old Pagan Passion Play style, that is why the bible is written in these verses because it is a piece meal of various text that pretty much all come from what many consider the "gospel of Q". The Gospel "according to" Mark pretty much copied "Q" which no longer exist probably burned in the Library of Alexandria or some other ritual destruction of allegedly heretic text. Anyway Mark, Matthew, Luke are all pretty much the same probably written some 10-30 years apart with Mark being the first and simplest written sometime between 70-75CE then Matthew probably between 80-85CE, Luke most likely around 85-95CE these were known and the "Synoptic Gospels" because they were all basically alike the only difference being that each one in succession just magically got MORE intricate and more fanciful adding miracles and tall tales attributed to the main character as is usually the case in Oral Tradition and when the author wanted to one up the previous version.
Then of course John comes along decades later probably around 110-125CE with his even more fantastical version just chock full of miracles and magic and quite a bit different than the other 3.

Now nobody has a clue to whom these "authors" really were, these were all Pseudo anonymous writings which was extremely common place back then, even today it still is, Mark Twain for instance was Samuel Clemens and there are hundreds of others.
These Gospels which were hand picked by the Council of Nicaea while burning all the many others was meant to get everyone "on the same page" so to speak and Constantine in essence made Iesous "real" by declaring him divine and denouncing Arianism and making "this version" of Christianity the State religion.
Thus over the course of a few hundred years this purely fictitious character which originally was just an allegory in an Astrological Drama meant to be acted out on a stage, a "Personification of the SUN" was slowly but surely transformed from allegorical into a historical figure.

Even though during the time of this so called Jesus alleged existence which was one of the most documented centuries in history, there were numerous well known and very prolific historians that wrote about virtually anything and everything under the sun, common everyday life sometimes in excruciating detail.
However this infamous Jesus known throughout the land far & wide with great multitudes of people that followed him everywhere he went, he performed many miracles, healed the sick, cured the blind, walked on water, upon his alleged death there was a enormous Earthquake all though out the land, the entire Earth shrouded in darkness for 3 hours and the bodies of saints rising from the dead in Jerusalem showing themselves to many people and on & on yet not a single historian of the day bothers to mention such a spectacle?
Absolutely impossible.
As a matter of fact not a single word written about this alleged Jesus by anybody of any kind until at least 70CE some 40 years or so later?
On face value the existence of this godman going on empirical evidence is not even worthy of discussion.

Then when one takes into account the clear & obvious similarities between this mythical figure Vs various other Sun Gods then the whole concept of Christianity just becomes silly.

The NT ONLY makes sense when one places an Astrological Template over it. I have read the bible cover to cover 3X, only on the 3rd and final time did it make even the slightest bit of sense and that was when I had learned of the Astrological beginnings & meanings, that the entire NT is just an Astrological Drama with the characters allegorical for various cosmic deities.

Jesus the main character in this little tale is the personification of the SUN, he first meets "John the Baptist" which is allegorical for "Aquarius" the water bearer.
Next on the suns journey he meets "the 2 fishermen" this is Pisces and so on.
The Suns birth and death on Dec 25th Winter Solstice, the rebirth of life in spring the Vernal Equinox, the Sun is "most high" in Summer.
Jesus (the SUN) rides both an "Ass & a Foal" into Jerusalem one might ask well just how the hell could he do that? Well its easy when what you are really taking about is the SUN going through the Constellation of Cancer of which the 2 stars making up part of the head are today called Asellus Borealis and Asellus Australis which means the Northern & Southern Ass.
In older star charts such as from the Chaldean's these 2 stars were known as "The Ass & the Foal"
Thus Jesus (The SUN) rides both the Ass & the Foal into Jerusalem, piece O cake once you realize that what you are reading is part of that inner & outer mystery school "secrets" that Painter was alluding to in the first post.

The few parts of the Bible that are non fiction are simply just a few places such as Jerusalem, Rome, Babylon, various geographical areas as the setting of this Astrological drama indeed are real, the authors did not claim it was taking place on some fictional planet.
There were a few well known real people mentioned to give minor credence to the story such as Julius Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar, Judas Maccabees (actually Judas Hasmonaeans) the name "Maccabee" was a surname or nickname that meant "Battle hammer", anyway there were of course some real people in these stories but by far the vast majority are "allegorical" characters that were meant to be used as a vehicle to transmit ideas, & in parables to get profound meanings across in an imaginative way.
Hercules for instance is a classic example, Same with Samson, they were not real historical people, they were allegorical figures brought to life as vivid personalities to spread the ideas the authors were hoping to transmit to the reader or really back then the "Orator" as these tales were exactly that, oral tradition passed down & around, these tales were the Theater/TV of their day & the Orators were the actors & rock stars of the time.

In order to claim open mindedness towards Biblical narratives one MUST ask, what is true, what isn't, where do these stories originate?

To find that out take what is known fact within reasonable doubt which is the beginnings of this story originate with the Jewish/Hebrew culture sometime around 600BCE.

Ok, what do we know about the Jewish people in that time in history which is collaborated by several sources? They were in exile in Babylon.

Who were the Babylonians in c.600BCE, what did they believe, who were their gods, their religion/rituals? What do we know about the "mystery schools"? Aware that words over 2 millennia ago sometimes meant something completely different than their common usage today? for instance the word "Wisdom" more than 2000 years ago meant "Knowledge of Astrology" the word "Truth" which you see both of these words all though out the Bible usually was referring to "Secrets".



This verse which is just one out many takes on a new meaning when you actually know what it is you are reading because many times words back then had a completely different meaning than they do today.

"If we continue in His teachings then we shall know the truth (the secrets) and these truths (secrets) will liberate us and make us free, with the ability and power to make others free." (John 8:31,32)

Well "secrets" referred to the "secret doctrines" of the Inner & Outer Mystery schools.



What do we know about the various stories and where they originate? I'll name just one, see if you can tell me the related story. Between the twenty-first and twenty-fourth of December the nights are the darkest and longest of the entire year and were known to ancient astrologers as the Whale's Belly, this has reference to the winter constellation Cetus, the Whale. Now what story in the Bible was derived from this Chaldean Astrological text?

What about the Chaldean king, Sargon? ever heard of him? probably not but I bet you have heard of his story. At Sargon's birth, his mother the queen placed him in a bitumen-lined basket and laid it among the river bulrushes where a water-carrier found him and took him home and brought him up as her own. Sound familiar? Well this was written over 1000 years prior to the Biblical version.

Ever read the "Chaldean Book of Numbers"?

If you "really" want to know anything about the Bible then you need to read about Sumerian/Kemetic/Babylonian religion, stop reading the Bible itself .

There is virtually nothing in the Bible that can not be traced back to much older Pagan religions & rituals.

Painter.

If I remember correctly the book "The Temple of Man" was not actually written by Isha Schwaller but in fact Rene Schwaller her husband.
I have that book in my library was given to me by one of my professors at Stanford back in the 80s.
I found the book to be quite hard to follow although had some interesting interpretations the main thing I garnered from it was the connection between mathematics like the "Golden Ratio" which was also used in Greek and Roman architecture as well.

Posted by: lunk Mar 6 2008, 10:35 AM

Zeitgeist gave me a better understanding of the Bible than
any priest, minister, or church.

If the Bible could be seen as ancient metaphor and myth, it would be better.

On the surface, to me, it reads as a horror story.

Who would want to live their life literally believing this?

imo,
the non-religious
lunk.

Posted by: painter Mar 6 2008, 02:23 PM

QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Mar 5 2008, 12:54 PM) *
<s>
Painter.

If I remember correctly the book "The Temple of Man" was not actually written by Isha Schwaller but in fact Rene Schwaller her husband.
I have that book in my library was given to me by one of my professors at Stanford back in the 80s.
I found the book to be quite hard to follow although had some interesting interpretations the main thing I garnered from it was the connection between mathematics like the "Golden Ratio" which was also used in Greek and Roman architecture as well.


That is correct, my bad.

You've said a lot above the snip that I don't have time at the moment to reply to. Very interesting post, though. Thanks for the contribution! cheers.gif

Posted by: THE_DECIDER Mar 28 2008, 04:53 AM

anyone interested in taking a critical look at religion...might wanna learn from the best..

http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/

Posted by: dirknb Jun 6 2008, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Aug 28 2007, 04:06 AM) *
I still think, it doesn't add to the credibility of the movie, when they start it by highlightening the religious aspect. And I can't really see a reason, why they did it. It will however turn off religious people like Natasha.


I thought the same thing when I first saw Zeitgeist. However, later it occured to me that not only is it important, but it's more important than the political aspect of how the world really works. We can expose 9/11 and totally win the political battle, but as long as people remain in the dark about religion we will continue to be divided and conquered.

Posted by: Sanders Jun 6 2008, 03:57 PM

For the record,

I dig Jordan Maxwell, and have learned a lot from his lectures. Despite that I think he's kind of a kook.

I also love Zeitgeist - a great movie IMO. But I really think he misses the mark somewhat in part 1. Factually, Isis was no virgin, Horus was never killed (or resurected), as he alleges, except in the way that Set kills Horus and Horus kills Set daily and nightly as the sun rises and sets. Those parallels between Egyptian legends and the Christ story are really pushing it, I don't know where he got that stuff from (just ask any Egyptologist). Furthermore, he makes kind of a bunder, IMO, by focusing on Egypt in the first place. Mesopotamia is where the roots of what he's talking about were. Sumer, Chaldea, the origins of Pagan worship, of western civilization for that matter - all there, not in Egypt - Egypt was a stop along the way, furthermore, those influences bypassed Egypt completely in some cases and expanded directly from Mesopotamia into Phoenicia, modern Turkey, the Caucasus and the Indus valley independently. The "dragon blood-line", which is the course of the rulers who led these forages into the (French) Merovingian and Viking lands and finally manifested as the royalty of Europe, Scandinavia and finally England; along with the tribe of Dan, who's mark was the serpent and left their name all over the rivers and towns of Europe along similar routes (and were the Pagan black-sheep of the Israel tribes) are intimately connected. Zeitgeist fails to connect these dots, and since this Mesopotamian root is the source of the astrological knowlege and legends that Zeitgeist (part 1) is all about, I found this to be a disappointing flaw.

EDIT: I don't want to sound like a fuddy-duddy (to quote my grandmother). I really like Jordan Maxwell, I really like Zeitgeist, and recommend both. (I just think that a grain of salt is needed in both cases.)

Posted by: Sanders Jun 6 2008, 05:36 PM

Numbers 12 & 13

I live in Japan. Things are bunched up in "10's" here. Not a surprise, we all have 10 fingers and toes, and base 10 is conveinient math-wize.

But in the West, or in America anyway (and I assume to great extent in England), 12 is a sort of "base" number. 13 also pops up a lot. In Japanese culture, which evolved totally independent of western influence until the late 19th century, there is no word for a "dozen". Not to mention a "baker's dozen" (13).

There are lots of examples of extra weight given to the numbers 12 and 13 in the West:

12 donuts in a dozen.

12 inches in a foot.

12 months in a year. (This correlates with lunar cycles of course, but that is not unrelated here so I'll include it.)

12 banks in the Federal Reserve.

13 American colonies.

13 stripes on the flag, 13 arrows, 13 leaved olive branch in the eagle's claws, 13 rows in the pyramid (admittedly connected with the numbr of colonies, but was it all an accident?).

12 stars on the EU flag. (Even though the number of member countries has almost always been different.)

12 tribes of Isreal - or, 13, depending on how you count. In the bible, someone is always left out - Levin, because they were the preists and didn't receive land, or Dan, because they were Pagans, or Rueben, for incestual conduct (Reuben is described as having shared a bed with Bilhah, Rachel's maid, like his father, Joseph & Bilhah begot Dan and Naphtali.) Actually, there were 13 tribes.

12 disciples ... add Jesus and you get 13.

12 astrological signs. ... plus the sun, you get 13. Or the 12 astological signs plus the dragon and you get 13.

The dragon??? The dragon is the constellation at true north. The earth wobbles - thousands of years ago, the north star was not Polaris - it was Thuban. The north star changes as the earth slowly wobbles - it takes about 25,000 years to complete the circle as it passes through the ages (we are now in the age of Pieces). In the middle of that circle, at true theoretical north is the constellation Draco, the Dragon.

(Draco rules the heavens, the dragon blood-line is, as per this rational which is embraced to this day by certain powerful people in England and elsewhere apparently, rules on earth. The tribe of Dan, pagan outcasts of the old testament, the "addler on the path", who carried the mark of the serpent, are intimately connected to this "dragon-stuff" IMO, as are the Spartans, born from dragon teeth, as were the Merovingian kings, descended from a sea-serpent, as were the Chinese even, with their Dragon-throne, which they inherited along with civilization itself from the Indus valley. ...Maybe. It's awfully interesting at least. )

Posted by: lunk Jun 10 2008, 05:38 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Jun 6 2008, 02:36 PM) *
Numbers 12 & 13


More to do about the number 12,
harmonics and frequencies:

http://rexresearch.com/articles/roffe.htm

the fundamental, lunk

P.S. Watch Zeitgeist
good movie!

Posted by: Nunyabiz Jun 13 2008, 09:37 AM

" Factually, Isis was no virgin, Horus was never killed (or resurrected), as he alleges, except in the way that Set kills Horus and Horus kills Set daily and nightly as the sun rises and sets."

"Factually" Isis was pretty much whatever the believer wanted her to be, she didn't exist. Also like most all Egyptian gods Isis represented 100s of different things.
Isis was generally viewed as the "Virgin of the World" basically what today you might call "Mother Nature" she represented the 4 elements of Life, Light, Heat, Force thus the beginning of all things. One must remember what we are talking about here, all of these solar & vegetative religions are all allegorical.
Isis which was the model for the Christian "Mary" was the constellation "VIRGO" the VIRGIN. Horus was the SUN as was the mythical Jesus.

So what Maxwell "alleges" is absolutely correct, ALL of these celestial Queen of Heavens, Mother Natures, Goddess of take your pick were ALL VIRGINS.

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/no2_virgin_birth_sun_myth.htm

QUOTE
"Maia, mother of Sakia and Yasoda of Chrishna; Celestine, mother of the crucified Zunis; Chimalman, mother of Quexalcote; Semele, mother of the Egyptian Bacchus, and Minerva, mother of the Grecian Bacchus; Prudence, mother of Hercules; Alcmene, mother of Alcides; Shing- Mon, mother of Yu, and Mayence, mother of Hesus, were all as confidently believed to be pure, holy and chaste virgins, while giving birth to these Gods, sons of God, Saviors and sin-atoning Mediators, as was Mary, mother of Jesus, and long before her time."


You are treating these fictional deities as if they were real, they were all allegorical for celestial bodies.

Horus died and was resurrected because he was an allegory for the SUN! ALL sun gods died and were resurrected.
Hell even every single Egyptian believed that THEY would be resurrected that is why they were mummified so you really cant be saying that they didn't believe that their GOD didn't die and get resurrected, are you? DOH!


"Those parallels between Egyptian legends and the Christ story are really pushing it"

Me thinks you need to do a bit more research as those parallels are dead on. The mythical Jesus is virtually an exact copy of Horus and his mother Mary is clearly another version of the usual Goddess of Nature and allegory for the constellation VIRGO the Virgin. The exact same story line can be seen all though out history from the Sumerians to the Babylonians the Greeks the Romans even the Aztecs and so on.
The NT is an astrological drama not a historical account.

Posted by: Sanders Jun 14 2008, 12:00 AM

By "factually", I meant as per the original Egyptian myths.

Anyway, although I do concede that there are some parallels between various religious narratives and earlier pagan myths, a lot of the claims in Zeitgeist appear to be just plain wrong. There's no point in arguing about it, but I assure you I didn't come to this conclusion out of any lack of research.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm#BOGUS

QUOTE
Summary of the Osiris-Isis-Horus Myth

In ancient Egyptian tradition, at least as preserved to us, the Osiris-Isis-Horus myth was never recounted as a coherent whole; rather, it served as a source of allusions for a large number of religious texts. It was a sequence of scenes that was unmistakably rooted in the mortuary cult. The only texts that furnish us with a continuous narrative are written in Greek, by Diodorus (1st century BC) and especially by Plutarch (c. 46 - 120 AD). But in their care about a single, meaningful, stimulating story these authors seem to have strayed from the Egyptian form of the myth. The myth has both a prehistory and a starting point. The prehistory is not narrated in the Egyptian texts, yet it is necessary for all that follows (see Jan Assman, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, p. 23).

The basic Egyptian myth goes like this: Osiris became ruler of the land, but was tricked and slain by his jealous brother, Seth. According to the Greek version of the story, Typhon (Seth) had a beautiful coffin made to Osiris' exact measurements, and with 72 conspirators at a banquet, promised it to the one who would fit it. Each guest tried it for size, and Osiris was the one to fit exactly. Immediately Seth and the conspirators nailed the lid shut, sealed the coffin in lead, and threw it into the Nile. The coffin was eventually borne across the sea to Byblos, where Isis, who had been continually searching for her husband, finally located it. She returns the body to Egypt where Seth discovers it, cuts the corpse into pieces, and scatters them throughout the country. Isis transforms herself into a kite, and with her sister Nephthys, searches for and finds all the pieces (except the male member, which she replicates), reconstitutes the body, and before embalming to give Osiris eternal life, she revivifies it, couples with it, and thus conceives Horus.

"Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival." (Plutarch, Moralia V, On Isis and Osiris, 18)

According to the principal version of the story cited by Plutarch, Isis had already given birth to her son, but according to the Egyptian Hymn to Osiris, she conceived him by the revivified corpse of her husband.


QUOTE
The Birth and Flight of Horus

The slaying and dismemberment of Osiris, and his re-joining and rejuvenation by his wife Isis, is a common theme of a large corpus of texts, which do not actually describe it but rather presuppose it as the trigger for various actions whose aim is to cope with this catastrophe. Just as it was Osiris' undoing that he was the first of the divine rulers to have a brother and thus a rival for the throne, so his sisters became his "salvation." Isis, his sister-wife, was the first to take action by traversing the land to collect his scattered body parts.

...Isis' activities with regard to the corpse of Osiris culminate in the posthumous conception of Horus. In the accounts of Greek historians Diodorus and Plutarch, Isis recovers all the body parts of the slain god except for his virile member, which had been swallowed by a fish. She was thus obliged to replace this member with an artificial one that she uses as an instrument for her posthumous insemination to produce Horus....

...Here is some commentary on the "conception of Horus" from various Egyptian scholars:

"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)
In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed." A "miraculous birth" perhaps because it involves a dead and then revived husband, but not a virginal conception (sometimes wrongly called an "immaculate conception" -- that has to do in Catholic theology with Mary's conception without Original Sin, not Jesus' conception) nor a virgin birth as contained in the Bible...


http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/P325/

QUOTE
...Upon further research, I’ve concluded that this theory originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927. He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt. He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation. The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself...

...Since Massey, there is a dearth of anybody with any credentials that has adopted a straight Horus=Jesus theory. There is a one individual that has adopted some of Massey’s thoughts and incorporated them into a book-The Christ Conspiracy. This appears to be the basis for the claims that I see. The author is Acharya S. Her website is http://www.truthbeknown.com I note that Richard Price, a noted Christ Myther, and one that I take much more seriously then Acharya, said the following:

“Those of use who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth butt little else...

His other criticism, like mine, is that she uses very dated sources (19th Century) who were in Price’s words “eccentrics, freethinkers, and theosophists.”
Les, I am using your post from 1/3/05 as an example of the claims because you carry more credibility than most. That said here are the claims and what I have found:

Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.

Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

....Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.

There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12. In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple. Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others.

Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account. There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this. There is nothing.

Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.

According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did. Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

...In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them.



http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/religions_christianity.html

QUOTE
In the case of Adonis, there is no trace of a resurrection in pictorial representations or in any texts prior to the beginning of the Christian era.2 In fact, the only four witnesses that refer to the resurrection of Adonis date from the second to the fourth century (Lucian,3 Origen,4 Jerome5 (who depends upon Origen), and Cyril of Alexandria6) and none of these mentions the triduum.

The attempt to link the Adonis and Attis cults to the worship of Tammuz and his alleged resurrection7 rests, as Kramer put it, on "nothing but inference and surmise, guess and conjecture."8 Still more remote from the rise of Christianity is the Sumerian epic involving Ianna’s descent to the Nether World.9


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

QUOTE
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Or Christianity Before Christ is unreliable, but no comprehensive critique exists. Most scholars immediately recognize many of his findings as unsupported and dismiss Graves as useless .... In general, even when the evidence is real, it often only appears many years after Christianity began, and thus might be evidence of diffusion in the other direction. Another typical problem is that Graves draws far too much from what often amounts to rather vague evidence....

...All this is not to say Graves didn't have some things right. But you will never be able to tell what he has right from what he has wrong without totally redoing all his research and beyond, which makes him utterly useless to historians as a source. For example, almost all his sources on Krishna long postdate Christian-Nestorian influence on India. No pre-Christian texts on Krishna contain the details crucial to his case, apart from those few that were common among many gods everywhere. Can you tell from Graves which details are attested by early evidence, and which by late? That's a problem.

...Although I have not exhaustively investigated this matter, I have confirmed only two real "resurrected" deities with some uncanny similarity to Jesus which are actually reported before Christian times, Zalmoxis and Inanna, neither of which is mentioned by Graves or John G. Jackson (another Gravesian author--though both mention Tammuz, for whom Inanna was mistaken in their day). This is apart from the obvious pre-Christian myths of Demeter, Dionysos, Persephone, Castor and Pollux, Isis and Osiris, and Cybele and Attis, which do indeed carry a theme of metaphorical resurrection, usually in the terms of a return or escape from the Underworld, explaining the shifting seasons. But these myths are not quite the same thing as a pre-Christian passion story. It only goes to show the pervasiveness in antiquity of an agricultural resurrection theme, and the Jesus story has more to it than that, although the cultural influence can certainly be acknowledged.

The only pre-Christian man to be buried and resurrected and deified in his own lifetime, that I know of, is the Thracian god Zalmoxis (also called Salmoxis or Gebele'izis), who is described in the mid-5th-century B.C.E. by Herodotus (4.94-96), and also mentioned in Plato's Charmides (156d-158b) in the early-4th-century B.C.E. According to the hostile account of Greek informants, Zalmoxis buried himself alive, telling his followers he would be resurrected in three years, but he merely resided in a hidden dwelling all that time. His inevitable "resurrection" led to his deification, and a religion surrounding him, which preached heavenly immortality for believers, persisted for centuries.

The only case, that I know, of a pre-Christian god actually being crucified and then resurrected is Inanna (also known as Ishtar), a Sumerian goddess whose crucifixion, resurrection and escape from the underworld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. 1500 B.C.E., attesting to a very old tradition. The best account and translation of the text is to be found in Samuel Kramer's History Begins at Sumer, pp. 154ff., but be sure to use the third revised edition (1981), since the text was significantly revised after new discoveries were made. For instance, the tablet was once believed to describe the resurrection of Inanna's lover, Tammuz (also known as Dumuzi). Graves thus mistakenly lists Tammuz as one of his "Sixteen Crucified Saviors." Of course, Graves cannot be discredited for this particular error, since in his day scholars still thought the tablet referred to that god (Kramer explains how this mistake happened)...


http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/single/3335000.html

QUOTE
Start with the bibliography, and it reads like a Rogue's Gallery of Scholastic Incompetence: Freke and Gandy, Acharya S, Tim Leedom, T. W. Doane, Earl Doherty, Helen Ellerbe, Kersey Graves, John Shelby Spong, Godfrey Higgins, Gerald Massey, Alvin Boyd Kuhn. These last three (in reverse order) are Harpur's most favored sources; throughout Harpur expresses bewilderment that these three "scholars" (the word he applies liberally to just about anyone, regardless of credentials), especially Kuhn, have been so vastly ignored. The very idea that they have been ignored because of their incompetence and inability somehow never manages to cross Harpur's uncritical mind.

Some critical work backing this up was done for us by W. Ward Gasque, a Canadian Biblical scholar, who reports that he emailed 20 Egyptologists to get their view of these last three writers. Of the 10 who responded to Gasque, only one had ever heard of any of them. I think it worth reporting much of what Gasque reports, in full:

Harpur refers to Kuhn, Massey and Higgins as 'Egyptologists'; but he does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions, nor does he appeal to any of the standard reference books, such as the magisterial three volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001) or any primary sources.

He is especially dependent on Kuhn, whom he describes as "one of the single greatest geniuses of the 20th century" -- [one who] "towers above all others of recent memory in intellect and his understanding of the world's religions." Further, "Kuhn has more to offer the Church than all the scholars of the Jesus Seminar together. More than John Spong, C. S. Lewis, Joseph Campbell or Matthew Fox." Harpur declares himself "stunned at the silence with which [Kuhn's] writings have been greeted by scholars."

...I emailed 20 leading international Egyptologists, regarding the contributions made to the field by Kuhn, Higgins and Massey. I also asked their opinion of the following claims by Kuhn (and hence Harpur):

* That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian Iusa, which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves."

* That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ . . . He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."

* That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with 12 followers.'"

* That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and . . . this word, when the vowels are filled in . . . is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."

* That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least 4,000 years BCE."

Only one of the 10 experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey! Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men is mentioned in M.L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995); nor are any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942).

Since he died in 1834, Kitchen noted, "nothing by Higgins could be of any value whatsoever, because decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs was still being finalized, very few texts were translated, and certainly not the vast mass of first-hand religious data."

Another scholar responded: "Egyptology has the unenviable distinction of being one of those disciplines that almost anyone can lay claim to, and the unfortunate distinction of being probably the one most beleaguered by false prophets." He dismissed Kuhn's work as "fringe nonsense."

Posted by: Nunyabiz Jun 15 2008, 01:58 PM

well your first 2 sources are just "interpretations" of what a self proclaimed "Evangelical biblical scholar Ben Witherington" has to say about defending his delusions. Cant say as I particularly care what some insanely bias interpretation is. Christian apologist are masters of denial.
Take a Young Earth Creationist for example, I defy you to convince any YEC that the Earth is not 6000 years old, ga-head, you will witness blatant denial of ABSOLUTE FACT to the extent that only come from full blown delusional psychosis.

Strangely enough source #3 was actually ME eviscerating "Consigliere" (again a full blown Christian apologist) back in 2005 on the Stupid evil Bastard site.

#4 is from "Reverend Bruce M. Metzger" which like all staunch Christian apologist refuses to accept anything that doesn't fit into his very narrow world view.

#5. I agree with on some things, however Richard Carrier is one of those that are inclined to say that you can not prove right now the YOU EXIST type of people.
His interpretations of some things are bit skewed because of it.
I can re post a rather lengthy old post I have archived somewhere if I can find it but I think these articles by Earl Doherty do a better job of explaining this position anyway.
In it he mentions Metzger, Carrier and several others.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp13D.htm

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp13B.htm

The last source is just some ding a ling again linking pure crap from "Apologetics Ministries" website.

I have researched religion for about 32+ years now, I have yet to find a single "Christian" whether he/she is an accredited Egyptologist, Archaeologist etc or not that will accept any evidence that goes against their religious viewpoint, thus to me their interpretation of evidence is suspect at best, in most cases is actually outright laughable.

Posted by: lunk Jun 15 2008, 08:39 PM

What can disappear in a puff of logic
yet reappears in the strangest places?

I think that evolutionists are creationists,
and both "theories" were made up by
the shadowy puppet masters running
the place at different times.
These theories have been corrupted
from something, probably, vastly different,
from what either explains.

...No, I don't know what that is.

But you can't really get to it
until the assumptions and misinformation
about the past, are recognized, identified,
and cleared out of the way.

We seem to be very good at that here,
at P4T!

imo, lunk

Posted by: waterdancer Jun 16 2008, 03:16 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Jun 6 2008, 07:57 PM) *
1. Factually, Isis was no virgin

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Isisd.htm-
QUOTE
It is often argued that Isis was not a virgin because, in one version of the myth, she impregnated herself using the severed phallus of Osiris after he was killed and torn to pieces.... a 'miracle conecption'.
However, in another version of the myth, Frazer points out that Isis was impregnated with Horus:
"while she fluttered in the form of a hawk over the corpse of her dead husband"... a 'virgin conception'

[ Frazer, James: The Golden Bough, p422 ]

" The late form of the legend goes on to say that Isis fanned the body with her feathers, and produced air, and that at length she caused the inert members of Osiris to move, and drew from him his essence, wherefrom she produced her child Horus."

[ Budge, E.A. Wallia: Legends of the Gods, Chapter 5 ]



One must understand that 'virgin birth'& 'miracle brith' share a core mythological line and, in regards to mythological history, are one and the same generally speaking, so the birth of Horus in both accounts are applicable, not to mention the precident for such miracle conceptions is absolutly widespread traditionally.

As Carpenter points out:
"There is hardly a god whose worship as a benefactor of mankind attained popularity in any of the four continents... who was not reported to have been born from a virgin, or at least from a mother who owned the child not to any earthly father."

[ Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, Chaper 10, page 115 ]

As Massey points out:
"The mythical Messiah was always born of a Virgin Mother--a factor unknown in natural phenomena, and one that cannot be historical, one that can only be explained by means of the Mythos, and those conditions of primitive sociology which are mirrored in mythology and preserved in theology."

[ Massey, Gerald: Lectures, 1900 ]

As Joseph Mccabe, a Catholic Presist for a time points out:
"Virginity in goddessess is a relative matter...Isis seems to have been originally a virgin (or sexless ) goddess, and in the later period of egyption religion she was again considered a virgin goddess, demanding very strict abstinence from her devotees."

[ McCabe, Joseph : The Story of Religious Controversy ]

Some other sources on this point:

Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds, Chaper 10

Massey, Gerald: The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ

Doane, Thomas: Bible Myths and Parallels to other Religions, Chapter 7
Acharya S.: Suns of God Chapter 7


"Those parallels between Egyptian legends and the Christ story are really pushing it"

Do you mean http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/GMappendix.htm, Sanders? If so, it is from the appendix of Gerald Massey's book http://books.google.com/books?id=HgQnqzvgHEUC&dq=%22isis+taken+by+horus+in+adultery%22&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

Whether or not one agrees with everything in Part I of the movie, http://zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm with references, further study and debate points. I'm still waiting for Parts II and III- though Part II should be fairly common knowledge around here and the http://webcitation.org/5XbdDKTO3 http://wecanchangetheworld.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/a-debunking-of-the-movie-zeitgeist/ I've seen don't seem to have done all of their homework very well so far...

Posted by: The artful dodger Jun 16 2008, 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Philadelphia @ Nov 24 2007, 11:31 AM) *
Ideas that claim to 'debunk Christianity' but which list, for example, similarities between its articles of faith and the beliefs of various ancient mystery religions) are irrelevant, since similarities between the two are not disputed, even by Christians. It's because similarities exist and because there was a global expectation of Christ coming in to the world that is one of the chief reasons for the amazing and widespread acceptance of the Christian religion. Never was a global truth more keenly anticipated by mankind.

But the difference between paganism and Christianity is that Christianity is NOT A MYSTERY RELIGION. It's a REVEALED RELIGION. And that's the whole point. Christianity marks the end of mystery religion by the arrival of revealed truth. This arrival of a revealed religion also explains the decline and fall of paganism, the collapse of useless philosophies and the arrival of the freedoms and liberties we today take for granted. All of these are products of the widespread acceptance of Christianity as a revealed religion.

Finally, there is of course a huge difference between the CHURCH and CHRISTIANITY. Not to recognise this fact and not to distinguish between these two is to remain grossly ignorant of what Christianity is and what it is not.


Forgive me Philadelphia (apart from anything else this is my first post here) but the idea of a revealed as opposed to mystery religion is one that troubles me a little.

I always thought that the death or, at least, diminution of paganism had rather a lot to do with the actions of Christianity - burning witches, inquisitions etc... (not to mention the theft of every major feast day!) and that, perhaps, there should be room for a panoply of beliefs. The relationship with one's God is, for all of us, a deeply personal one, reflected and refined through a variety of means - For example: dogma, upbringing, education etc. Sadly there seems to be too much emphasis placed upon some sort of hierarchy of beliefs where each of us is inclined to place our own version on top with the others beneath. This is writ large in ideas that only the adherents of one religion (or cult) or another will actually facilitate entry into heaven leaving behind masses of mankind in some sort of Godly lottery.

This itself would seem rather unfortunate for the so-called 'unbelievers' among us who, because of their aforementioned education, upbringing and dogma are somehow excluded from eternity (except perhaps to burn in hell). Actions must surely speak louder than words in the relationship between oneself and any concept of God otherwise the whole concept of religion is reduced to little more than the status of a very exclusive club with excellent perks! I do however agree wholeheartedly with your division of CHURCH and CHRISTIANITY although I have always thought the human race might do a little better if we just tried to get along and worried a little more about the issues here rather than arguing about different versions of what might, or might not, come next.

Posted by: lunk Jun 17 2008, 12:10 AM

The newly anointed master free mason enters the hall.

"Upon the table, near the center of the hall are three holy books; the Bible, the Qaran, and the Bitavitagista... or something, you know the one for the Hindus?"

This was more or less the story told to me by a master free mason.
It makes me wonder...

If the Freemasons have been around for a long time...
could their predecessors have compiled and written these books?

imo, lunk

Posted by: Sanders Jun 17 2008, 01:09 AM

QUOTE (Waterdancer)
Do you mean this list, Sanders?


I was referring more to the main points that are in the narration. I haven't looked closely at that list.

QUOTE
Cary is correct in that "Jesus is basically just yet another version of the Sun god" "the writings were bastardized by the Council of Nicaea" "and that the Bible is an Astrological drama with the Sun as a central figure" these are all true and easily proven by mountains of Archaeological evidence.


It might surprise you, nunayabiz, but I essentially agree with you (and Cary, and Peter of Zeitgeist, and a million others who think along these lines).

I just am of the opinion that Peter was a little sloppy in part one. How can you call Mithra's being born of a rock a "virgin birth"? Even Acharya states, in her writings about Mithra: 'In any case, while Mithra may not precisely have been perceived as "born of a virgin," certainly he was considered the product of a "miraculous birth."' That's from one of Peter's favorite sources, the woman who wrote the Zeitgeist companion guide. Where in the Egyptian myths did Horus have 12 disciples? Wasn't it 4? Did Peter get that from Massey or from Acharya? Where'd they get it from? Is it in the original texts? What about the ressurection - where in the myths is Horus ressurected? Nowhere - unless you consider that he and Set destroy each other on a daily basis and return the next day. Yes, it can be argued that in that sense Horus was ressurected, but it is not explained that way, it isn't the impression one gets from watching Zeitgeist.

I have heard people say that Paul Warburg, engineer of the Fed Reserve Act, warned the US Senate that we're gonna get one-world-government whether we like it or not, I ask them where they heard that, they say Zeitgeist. The fact is, it was his son James Paul Warburg who went before the Senate in 1950. These incidents of sloppy research reflect poorly on the other things in Zeitgeist, which are solid, and on the overall premise of his film, which I think is valid.

Personally, I look at Zeitgeist Part I as an op-ed. 'Here's my position, in 300 words or less'. Very thought provoking, beautifully done, but to really get the full picture I think you have to look deeper, for example I think one missing piece of this conversation is the fiece competition that went on between the Vatican and groups like the Templars, Cathars, Normans (Vikings), Merovingians, Freemasons etc. But while that's an important part of the story IMO and very pertinent with regard to the astrological (pagan) roots of the Christ story, to touch on it would make the movie 3 hours long. So Peter can be forgiven, to an extent, for trying to make his point in a succinct and easy to grasp manner. But does that make it OK to play loose with the facts? In my opinion it only serves to open his seminal work up to criticism.

Posted by: Sanders Jun 17 2008, 01:58 AM

QUOTE (lunk @ Jun 20 2008, 10:10 PM) *
The newly anointed master free mason enters the hall.

"Upon the table, near the center of the hall are three holy books; the Bible, the Qaran, and the Bitavitagista... or something, you know the one for the Hindus?"

This was more or less the story told to me by a master free mason.
It makes me wonder...

If the Freemasons have been around for a long time...
could their predecessors have compiled and written these books?

imo, lunk


Isn't the Hiram Abiff legend based on the Osiris myth?

Posted by: lunk Jun 17 2008, 08:24 AM

Looks like the same music played with different instruments.

Posted by: Sanders Jun 17 2008, 12:09 PM

Lunk, you got a way with words. yes1.gif

Yup.

Why the Templar and Freemason and "End-Timer"'s obsession with Solomon's temple? Accident? ... no, they're playing the same music. I haven't quite learned to read all the notes yet, but I'm pretty sure it's the same page.

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Nov 20 2008, 11:36 PM

I finally had a chance to download and watch "Zeitgeist" (up to now, either the download got stuck somewhere in the middle leaving me with a corrupt file, or it didn't work at all. I eventually got it in 13 parts from youtube).
So, I can finally say something about it.

The Egyptian word 'Neter' or 'Netjer' was mistranslated by the ancient Greeks as meaning "God".
What it means is something like "Divine Aspect".
There were about 700 Netjeru- 700 Aspects, 700 different ways of looking at one and the same thing.
This one thing was what the Egyptians called "Ua".
"Ua" is the Egyptian numeral for "One", and describes "One-ness" in every form imaginable.
It was not directly worshipped; instead it was supplicated through those 700 "Aspects", and no temples to "Ua" were ever build.

One of the consequences of this kind of outlook was the concept that everything which exists is a thought in the mind of god.
If that statement is true, then it must by neccessity mean that the thoughts which you think within your own mind are also thoughts in the mind of god.
(The kind of thought in question is a *conscious* thought- not the kind of things which happens when at a quarter past midnight some memory pops into your head because you can't sleep;
a memory which brings along all kinds of other memories by association- and before you know it, it's six in the morning...
That's what you could call "mind-babbling", but not conscious thought)

What all of this means is that your soul is not something which was graciously given to you by god, but it's what god consists of:
Consciousness pure.
Consequently, within the confines of your own inner universe, you *are* god.

Provided that you remind yourself that outside of those confines, you are merely another component part...
Each and every human being is effectively another "Netjer", as is each and every animal or plant.
There is nothing which is ever separate from that entirety.

The Egyptians projected that very concept unto their rulers:
A Pharao in life was the embodiment of Horus.
In death, he became the embodiment of Osiris.
This is were "Zeitgeist" gets muddled:
Horus was never 'crucified'.
What must be understood is that Horus and Osiris were two different sides of one and the same thing. Like everything else within that system, they were reflections of each other.
Osiris was Horus' father.
What that does *not* mean is that a dead Pharao would turn into his own father...
It simply meant that he became the father of the next Pharao- symbolically.
But *not neccessarily* physically...
Since all 'Netjeru' were effectively reflections of each other, and Aspects of one and the same thing, these two were effectively reflections and a different form of the Sun: Ra.
Hence, a Pharao would usually have the title "Sa-Ra" before his name. It means "Son of Ra", or "Son of the Sun": Osiris was said to be Ra's son, while Horus was the principle of renewal personified.
The idea of 'Dynasties' came into being by way of a Priest called Manetho, who was commissioned to write a History of Egypt for Ptolemy I.
He gave the Greeks what they wanted to hear...
In reality, there never were any Dynasties.

As I said- Horus was not crucified; but Osiris was- metaphorically speaking.
His Brother Set intended to murder him (Any similarities with Kain and Able are purely coincidental); so he secretly measured his body while he was asleep, and had a beautifully decorated chest made to measure.
He then invited Osiris to a banquet, during which he showed off the chest.
When everyone present admired it's workmanship, he jokingly offered the chest as a prize for anyone who would fit into it.
And since Osiris was described as exceptionally tall, he obviously was the only one fitting into it.
After all, it was made to measure...
A bit like "He whom the coffin fits can have it".
Once Osiris was inside, Set slammed the lid shut and sealed it. He then threw it into the Nile, and Osiris died- being separated from Fire, Water, Earth and Air.

His wife Isis tried to discover the location of the coffin, and eventually found it.
Then she made the mistake of leaving it out of sight for a moment, and Set discovered it.
In a fit of rage, he tore Osiris' body into fourteen parts, and strew them all over Egypt.
Isis set out to re-discover the parts; but she finally only found thirteen. The last part consisted of Osiris' genitals, which Set had thrown into the Nile; they were lost.
Isis eventually re-constituted Osiris' body by embalming it, replacing the missing genitals with a wooden model.
She then tried in vain to bring him back to life; eventually she turned herself into a Hawk, fluttered her wings over him, he came to life again, and she became pregnant with Horus.
According to the Egyptian texts, she is supposed to have constantly wailed and mourned, saying how much she missed "...Him whom I have never beheld" (In other words, their marriage had never been consummated). So- yes, it's a Virgin birth.
But it's not a physical concept- and was never meant to be seen as such.
(Incidentally- Set got really ticked off about his adversary turning up again like that; so he challenged him in court. The divine court eventually decided that the dead can not rule over the living; as a result it decreed that Osiris would be King- but only over the dead in the Netherworld...While Horus eventually became King in the world of the living.
As for Isis- her actual Egyptian name was "Ye-Set". It translates into "I-Seat": The seat of the self. The Egyptians said that the seat of true intelligence was the heart. During embalming, they actually threw the brain away...More symbolism.
By contrast, "Set" simpy means "Seat": Ego...)


What must be understood is that there is a fundamental difference between all this, and Christianity (all the similarities not withstanding).
The Egyptians took their understanding of the laws of nature (Netjer ?), and used it to explain the workings of the inner universe of man.
Thus you have a "weather-system"- with anger being the equivalent of thunder and lightning, for example.
At the same time, the idea of 'miracles' was not based on some naive idea of divine operations within the physical universe, but simply more symbolism designed to explain the workings of the internal universe...
It was a gigantic system of applied psychology, designed to gradually allow people to take charge of their inner universe and be what they were supposed to be:
Mortal gods.
The basic premise was actually quite simple:
The "Netjeru" inside of that inner universe are quite and simply the various component parts of which the human mind consists.
The individual can do one of two things:
One can either take charge of one's inner nature, and rule that universe like a god.
Or-
Just allow oneself to be run around by those component parts.

Did your right hand ever decide to go for a bit of a walk at three in the morning, ending up at the fridge because it felt hungry ?
Would it be supposed to do that in the first place...?

Emotion. Instinct. Desires.
Are they supposed to be in charge...?
Hardly.
You are meant to be in charge, ruling over all these things inside your inner universe like the sungod Ra rules over the kingdom of the gods- by illuminating it.

While these things up to a point are personifications of the laws of nature, they are *not* and never were intended to be mistaken for physical reality.
Neither are they supposed to be some kind of role-model.
Osiris, Isis, Nephtys, Set and Horus were collectively known as "The children of strife"...
And one of the forms of Ra was symbolised as a Scarab-Beetle.
Not very flattering- the king of the gods, being portrayed as a little insect which pushes a ball of dung around, isn't it...?

Thus, the various strange features found in Egyptian myths were not, and were never meant to be, seen as "miracles" of any sort.
They were *always* only ever a means by which to explain something which is otherwise impossible to explain, simply because we happen to be confined to a physical body.
We have a very limited ability to perceive.
Our senses tell us about the world around us, and we tend to mis-interpret these things as "reality".
But what we perceive is only ever an indirect form of perception:
You look at the wall, at your desk, at your hands.
Do you see a wall ? A desk ? A hand ?
No.
What you see is light reflecting of those things, but never the actual objects themselves.

If it is true that we perceive the material world around us only indirectly, by way of a series of reflections- how much more difficult is it to perceive things which are *not even material, three-dimensional things* ?
Have you ever tried to draw an image of 'Nothing' ?
How do you go about that...?
(Oh- I almost forgot: An empty page does not qualify...)

The only way you can do that is by way of using a symbol.
Writing consists of symbols:
Thus if I simply write out the word "NOTHINGNESS", the word itselve become a way of drawing an image of it. The Egyptians were absolute masters in the use of symbols.
But that's what those things were:
Symbols. A way of showing the un-showable. A way of describing the in-describable.
No more than that.
Your avarage Egyptian was not allowed into the inner sanctuary of a temple; they only ever got to see the statues of the Netjeru during processions.
Egyptian art on the other hand was always two-dimensional.
The idea was to make sure that that figure with the head of a Jackal would not be mistaken for reality...

It's not co-incidental that Sigmund Freud came to many of his conclusions and theories after reading some of those very Egyptian myths:
He realised that they have something to do with the world within.
The Religion of the ancient Egyptians was not a Religion in the modern sense at all.
It was a way of gradually refining an entire nation by teaching people to think.
Not to think what a Pharao wanted them to think-
*but to take control over the process by which thoughts are formed.*
It was meant to turn an entire nation into mortal gods.
Those who stand out by surpassing all others in that regard became immortal men....

Christianity has turned this unto it's head.
The idea is that the laws of nature are the will of a god which exists separate from *HIS* creation, outside, far away, untouchable. (Ua was bi-sexual; neither *HE* nor *SHE*- but both...)
Were the Pert-Em-Heru states "I did not steal", the Bible says "Thou shalt not steal".
Were the Pert-Em-Heru states "I did not kill", the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill".

Remember that I said that a Pharao in death became the personification of Osiris ?
A dead Tut-Ankh-Amen was actually adressed as "Osiris Tut-Ankh-Amen".
The same applied to each and every Egyptian, regardless if he was a court-official or a farm-labourer.
After death, he would be supposed to travel through the Netherworld (which later was turned into the Christian 'Hell'), until he would reach the Hall of the two Truths.
Here, he would be required to adress each of the forty-two assessors seated in this place, his heart would be weighed against the feather of truth, and finally he would come into the presence of Osiris...

Hang on a moment.
He dies. He *becomes* Osiris...And then he comes into the *presence* of Osiris...?
That would mean he comes *into his own presence*...
He has to face *himself*.
There is no one else there, and no one can ever lie to himself...
That gives a statement like "I did not steal" or "I did not kill" a completely different meaning.
(BTW- If the heart does *not* balance the feather of truth, it's devoured by Am-mut:
The "Mother of grasping". Someone that unfortunate will have the doubtful honor of going through another life-cycle: Am-Mut's counterpart was called "Ta-Uret". She was the Netjer-t of childbirth...)

Symbolism, and more symbolism.
Symbolism is a neccessity. Without it, even communication would become near impossible.
The problem starts when the true meaning of a symbol is lost, and instead people begin to worship the symbol itself.
Christianity contains more than just a fleeting resemblance to the ancient Egyptian concepts.
But it reverses inside and outside, as did Judaism before it.
The problems arising out of this were amplified when the Roman Empire assimilated Christianity as it's state religion, mingling this with the remnants of an extremely corrupt religious system whose main aim was to control the masses.
Christianity became the perfect carrier of a spiritual virus.
The results were catastrophic.

Now we could ask how this could have happened in the first place.
But that's another question which does not belong here...

And that's enough of me waffling.

Posted by: lunk Nov 21 2008, 01:10 AM

That was a very good waffle.

thx, lunk

Posted by: Devilsadvocate Nov 21 2008, 10:21 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 21 2008, 05:10 AM) *
That was a very good waffle.

thx, lunk



Thanks!
This is the relevant bit of the 'Book of the dead', dealing with the things people were meant to avoid:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4683&st=80&gopid=10759313&#entry10759313

Makes some pretty interesting reading...

Posted by: Sanders Feb 3 2009, 04:02 AM

I'm sticking some things here from a couple of sources regarding Zeitgeist claims in the 1st part of the original movie -

Well sourced:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm

On the alleged "virgin birth" of Horus:

QUOTE
"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)
"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)
"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)
"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)

In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed."


QUOTE
From the transcript of www.ZeitgeistMovie.com in red.

This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.

Horus is not (simply) the sun god, although that became one of his forms. Horus in ancient Egypt was the falcon god whose name means the high, far-off, or distant one. Re (or Ra) was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day (or noon) sun. Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.

He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky.

He is not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun (the sun rises in the east), in such Greek forms as Harakhti = "Horus of the horizon"; and Harmachis (-khis) = "Horus in the horizon." Later he was associated with the sun-god Re and known as Re-Harakhti. Atum was the god of the setting sun.

From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.

It is hieroglyphs, not hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphic is an adjective (e.g. hieroglyphic writings). The term "messiah" comes from the Hebrew Moshiach for "Anointed One." It is a Judaeo-Christian concept; it does not go back to ancient Egypt. [my note - I beg to differ here, there is good reason to believe messiah or moshiach derive from 'messeh', the holy Egyptian crocodile who's fat was used to annoint pharoahs] - Set (or Seth) was Horus' brother, or in other versions, his uncle. In one tradition of the Egyptian myth, Seth was Horus' rival (and usurper of Egypt's throne), in others, his balance (a bipolar, balanced embodiment of kingship). As mentioned above: since the beginning of the 20th century in Egyptological research, much debate has ensued over whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily historical/geo-political, or cosmic/symbolic. When the full Osiris complex became visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.

And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.

Horus was never sent to the underworld. That was Osiris who was killed and became lord of the underworld (i.e. the dead), while Horus was king of the living. In one version of the myth, Horus battles with Seth over an 80 year period, the earth-god Geb in a judgment awards the whole inheritance of Egypt to Horus, and Horus then becomes ruler of Egypt. From then on, the dead Egyptian king becomes an "Osiris", and his successor the living king is a "Horus." That is the primary meaning of the Horus-Seth battle myth. In the Egyptian Coffin Texts (Spell 148, quoted above), Horus appears as a falcon who soars up into the sky beyond the flight of the original bird-soul, beyond the stars and all the divinities of olden time whose souls inhabit the constellations. In so doing he brings back light and the assurance of a new day, thus subduing Seth, who personifies the terrors of darkness and death.

Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th

Wrong. The Persian/Roman god Mithras came to be seen as born on that date, as did Jesus later in the early Church. The December 25th date is not found in the Gospels or the New Testament. It was a later adoption by the Catholic Church: "In the first half of the fourth century AD the worship of the Sol Invictus was the last great pagan cult the Church had to conquer, and it did so in part with the establishment of Christmas...At the head of the Deposition Martyrum of the so-called Roman Chronograph of 354 AD (the Philocalian Calendar) there is listed the natus Christus in Betleem Judaeae ('the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea') as being celebrated on December 25. The Deposition was originally composed in 336 AD, so Christmas dates back at least that far." (See "Santa or Satan: Reply to a Funny Fundy")

The date of the birth of Horus according to some online sources is during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to our November month). The Egyptian calendar had three seasons, each four months and 30 days/month. The season of Akhet is months (in Greek) Thot, Phaophi, Athyr, Khoiak; the season of Peret (or Winter) is months (in Greek) Tybi, Mekhir, Phamenoth, Pharmouthi; the season of Chemou (or Summer) is months (in Greek) Pakhon, Payni, Epiph, Mesorê. See online sources: Egyptian Festival Calender ; Egyptian calendar months and seasons ; Grand Festivals ; Festival Rituals. We also know where Horus was supposedly born (at Khemmis or Chemmis in the Nile Delta of northern Upper Egypt).

of the virgin Isis-Meri.

Wrong again. Her name was simply Isis (in Greek). Her true Egyptian name is transliterated simply A-s-e-t or 3st (all woman names in Egyptian end with the "t"). Her name (Aset) means "seat" or "throne" (Oxford Encyclopedia, vol 2, "Isis" p. 188) and "the goddess's name is written in hieroglyphs with a sign that represents a throne, indicating the crucial role that she plays in the transmission of the kingship of Egypt" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 80).

And she definitely was not a virgin when she conceived Horus with the revivified Osiris, if these words mean anything: "[Osiris was] revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife" (Lesko, p. 162); "After having sexual intercourse..." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, p. 39); "revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him" (Richard Wilkinson, p. 146); "revive the sexual powers of Osiris" (Pinch, p. 80).

A virgin birth, or more properly, a virginal conception, is by definition non-sexual.

His birth was accompanied by a star in the east

No evidence any stars are mentioned in the birth of Horus.

which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior

There are no "three kings" in the birth of Horus, and there are no "three kings" in the Bible either. Read Matthew 2 for yourself:

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.'" (Matthew 2:1-2 KJV)

They are not called "kings" but "wise men" -- and they are not three in number, we don't know how many there were. Three gifts are later mentioned (gold, frankincense, myrrh) in verse 11, and these were equated with the wise men. Perhaps we are thinking of the Christmas carol "We three kings of Orient are...." ? Nice tune and lyrics, but it's always best to cross-check with the biblical text.

At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher

There is a form known as "Horus the Child" but he wasn't a prodigal teacher. He was kept hidden away by his mother, until he was ready to be ruler of Egypt. The young god was hidden in the papyrus marshes, hence his epithet Har-hery-wadj or "Horus who is upon his papyrus plants."

and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry

No evidence of any baptism for Horus, and no evidence of any "ministry" of Horus. Anubis (or Anup or Anpu) means Royal Child, and is usually depicted as jackal-headed or a wild dog-headed man, or a reclining black jackal. Anubis was the great protector god, guiding the soul through the underworld. He was also the Lord of embalming, and through this is connected with incense and perfumery. No baptism here. (See The Jackal Headed God or Egyptian Animal Gods).

Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with

Horus had NO 12 disciples he traveled with: remember he became ruler of Egypt after a long battle with Seth. Perhaps you could call all the subjects in Egypt his "disciples" (which means followers).

There were technically the "Followers of Horus [son of Isis]" called the Shemsu Heru, mentioned in the Liturgy of Funeral Offerings and purification ceremony. These were a group of beings who were closely connected with Osiris, and having "followed" him in this world they passed after him into the Other World (of the dead), where they became his ministrants and messengers. There were also followers (a different group) of Horus the Elder called the Mesentiu who are "workers in metal" or blacksmiths (see The Liturgy of Funeral Offerings, the fourth ceremony, commentary by Budge).

performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water

There are some healing "miracles" or magic associated with Horus, but this is with Horus the Child, not Horus the Elder or his adult forms. In the Late Dynastic cippi objects, Harpokrates (Horus-the-child) acts as an amuletic force warding off dangerous creatures such as crocodiles, serpents, and other noxious animals, etc. "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles" was a common manifestation of the importance of Horus in healing ritual. The healing of Horus from scorpian stings by Isis provided the reason for the production of the cippi of Horus and his role in healing. The power of this healing seems to come from his mother, Isis, who was indeed the "goddess of immense magical power" (Hart, Routledge Dictionary, "Isis" p. 79ff).

Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Annointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others

Wrong, no evidence for these names. The "forms" of the Horus-god are precisely what I listed above, under these categories: Horus the Child (healing / magical titles such as "Horus-on-the-Crocodiles"); Horus as son of Isis and Osiris ("pillar of his mother"; "savior of his father"); and Horus as a sun-god ("lord of the sky"; god "of the east"; Horus of / in "the horizon"; and later associated with Re).

After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.

Typhon is also known as Seth, his rival brother (or uncle). Horus was NOT crucified, was NOT buried for 3 days, and thus, was NOT resurrected. Your sources are wrong. In some versions of his battle with Seth, Horus had one or both of his eyes injured, but he was not killed. It was his father Osiris who was killed, dismembered, reconstituted, and revived by Isis, his magical mother.

These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure

No, they do not. They are unique to Jesus Christ (crucifixion, burial, bodily resurrection). I have demolished these claims in my long, detailed, documented article "http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm."


The above piece goes on to demolish other claims dealing with other deities.

On Zeitgeit's sources:

QUOTE
The "sources" used for Zeitgeist are outdated, unreliable, non-academic, non-scholarly, speculative, and/or conspiracy-laden tomes written by folks who are not trained in biblical scholarship, historical Jesus studies, Egyptology, or related fields, and/or rely on other non-scholarly, outdated, pseudo-historical books, and are therefore filled with errors:

* Acharya S, Suns of God and The Christ Conspiracy;
* Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ (orig c. 1900) and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World (orig 1907)
* Thomas Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (orig 1882)
* James Frazer, The Golden Bough (1st ed 1890; 2nd ed 1900; 3rd ed in 12 volumes, 1906-1915)
* Freke and Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries
Another two that were left out but argue along the same lines are Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (orig 1875) and Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (2004). John Jackson's Christianity Before Christ (1985) was also used, but he simply copies and quotes Massey, Kuhn, Churchward, Graves, and other pseudo-scholarship.

...Gasque sent an email to "twenty leading Egyptologists -- in Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria" in order to examine the following claims:

That the name of Jesus was derived from the Egyptian “Iusa,” which means "the coming divine Son who heals or saves"
That the god Horus is "an Egyptian Christos, or Christ....He and his mother, Isis, were the forerunners of the Christian Madonna and Child, and together they constituted a leading image in Egyptian religion for millennia prior to the Gospels."
That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers.' "
That "the letters KRST appear on Egyptian mummy coffins many centuries BCE, and....this word, when the vowels are filled in, is really Karast or Krist, signifying Christ."
That the doctrine of the incarnation "is in fact the oldest, most universal mythos known to religion. It was current in the Osirian religion in Egypt at least four thousand years BCE."
What Gasque found in response is the following, also put in bullet points:

*Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen of the University of Liverpool pointed out that not one of these men (Kuhn, Higgins, or Massey) is mentioned in M. L. Bierbrier's Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995), nor is any of their works listed in Ida B. Pratt's very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt.
*Only one of the ten experts who responded to my questions had ever heard of Kuhn, Higgins or Massey.
*The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ.
*Ron Leprohan, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, pointed out that while "sa" means "son" in ancient Egyptian and "iu" means "to come," but Kuhn / Harpur have the syntax all wrong.
In any event, the name "Iusa" simply does not exist in Egyptian. The name "Jesus" is Greek from a universally recognized west Semitic name (“Jeshu’a”), borne not merely by the central figure in the New Testament but also by many other people in the first century.
*There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was virgin born.
*There is no evidence for the idea that Horus was "a fisher of men" or that his followers (the King’s officials were called "Followers of Horus") were ever twelve in number.
KRST is the word for "burial" ("coffin" is written "KRSW"), but there is no evidence whatsoever to link this with the Greek title "Christos" or Hebrew "Mashiah."
*There is no mention of Osiris in Egyptian texts until about 2350 BC, so Harpur’s reference to the origins of Osirian religion is off by more than a millennium and a half.

...Virtually none of the alleged evidence for the views put forward in The Pagan Christ is documented by reference to original sources; the notes refer mainly to Kuhn, Higgins, Massey, or some other long-out-of-date work.
W. Ward Gasque holds a Ph.D. from Manchester University (UK). A graduate of Harvard University’s Institute for Educational Leadership (1993), he is President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies...



The below is unsourced, but I thought it was a good summary of the main points addressed elsewhere on the web -

http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=egyptology+zeitgeist+horus+christ&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-305&u=www.ltradio.org/articles/%3Fadmin%3Dlinktopdf%26link%3D195&w=egyptology+zeitgeist+horus+christ&d=KO5qVg-YSABQ&icp=1&.intl=us

QUOTE
According to the transcript of the film, the story of Horus is as follows: ‘Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected
.
According to the Egyptian legend Horus’ father was Osiris and his mother was Isis (but there is nothing to connect this name with Mary / Meri). Osiris was killed by his brother Set who wanted his throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died and she later gave birth to Horus. Horus then killed Set. ... Horus was supposedly born during the month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), and not on December 25th, a fact which does make any difference to the claim that both Horus and Jesus were born at the same time since the Bible never says that Jesus was born on December 25th! Ironically the makers of the film do have a point when they connect Christmas with ancient sun worship rituals, but only in relation to Catholicism, but not to New Testament Christianity. The dating of the birth of Jesus at December 25th came in as a result of the Roman Catholic church trying to entice Roman pagans to convert to Christianity without forsaking their midwinter festival which revolved around the ‘rebirth’ of the sun as the days began to lengthen. The earliest reference to the Christian celebration of Christmas is found in the Calendar of Filocalus, a manuscript compiled in Rome in AD 354.

...The film states that a star in the East announced his birth and that three kings came to bring gifts to the “saviour.” However, when stories detailing the birth of Horus are examined, there is no star or three kings who come to visit him. Trying to link this to Christianity fails in any event as the account of Christ’s birth in Matthew has magi (wise men, not kings) coming to Jesus with their actual number not being stated. The movie states that Horus was “baptised” by Anup and started a “ministry.” The only accounts remotely related to Horus and water are the stories told of Osiris (his father who is sometimes combined in ancient accounts with Horus to form one individual) whose body was cut up into 14 pieces by his enemy, Set, and scattered throughout the earth. Isis supposedly found each part of the body and after having Osiris float in the Nile, he came back to life or became the lord of the underworld, depending on which account is read. In any event, stating that Horus was “baptised” is simply playing fast and loose with Christian terminology. In addition, Horus had no “ministry.” There is nothing in the myths about Horus becoming a teacher at age 12...

...Neither are there any statements to the effect that Horus had 12 “disciples.” According to the accounts, he had four semi-gods that were followers and some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. No accounts of Horus being betrayed are found in his portrayals and he certainly did not die by crucifixion in any account. There is an incident described in one story of Horus being torn to pieces, with Iris requesting that the crocodile god fish him out of the water he was placed into, but the movie does not mention this as it does not fit in with their agenda. The movie puts the account of Horus as originating in 3,000 B.C., which predates the invention and practice of crucifixion, so there is another historical problem that must be overcome. The claims of Horus being buried for three days and resurrected are not to be found in any ancient Egyptian texts either...


Video about Zeitgeist's sources
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=3jXPjt_qCxQ&feature=related

Another video at this site
http://jp.youtube.com/user/ZeitgeistDebunked

Posted by: Willow Mar 23 2009, 04:12 PM

IMHO, it's a pity 'Zeitgeist's' interpretations of religion (understandably) put so many people off, as I think a reasonably valid, if not altogether accurately reseached, point was trying to be made. In fact, a line at the very end of the third presentation really resonated with me (unfortunately, he then raced off down another route I didn't find as appealing and the moment was lost). I can't remember the exact words used, but my interpretation of it was as follows:

Isn't it about time we stopped arguing over the 'maps' (religions / philosophies etc.) we were using and started to actually use them (which ever ones - they all essentially point to the same truths... see below)... to actually find and live by the truths to which they point?

‘The Golden Rule’.
Jesus - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Confucius - What you do not want done to you, do not do to others.
Mohammed - None of you is a believer until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.
Buddha - Do not hurt others with that which hurts yourself.
Hinduism - This is the sum of all duty: do nothing to others which if it were done to you would cause you pain.
Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to others.
Paganism - If it harm none, do what you will.


‘Do unto others as you would do unto yourself’ is not an instruction. It is a statement of fact. What we do, say and think adds to the collective consciousness that is Us.

Knowledge without understanding is like a map. Its only function is to help us find the location. Just sitting with a map in front of you will not allow you to experience the locality. It is only when we understand the knowledge that we can use it to get to, and experience, the locality of which it tells.

Perhaps all of the great spiritual leaders – the ‘Masters’ – are beings who have already dis-covered deeper, more beneficial levels of reality understanding and have elected to return to this plane of reality in order to facilitate greater understanding here?

Many formal religions also suffer from the fact that those in control have chosen to latch onto the messenger rather than the message. Shame really, as a large proportion of these messengers seem to have been trying to tell us that all the answers lie inside ourselves – that we already have access to ‘God’ whenever we wish it. (‘The Kingdom of God lies within’ sound familiar to anyone?) They came to try and set us free – and more often than not we kill them for their trouble, then deify them into being the very thing they were trying to get us away from: someone ‘else’ who will sort it all out for us.

Ultimately, though they may be a good starting place for many, formal religions are unproductive as they tend to cling to dogma and ‘tradition’, leading to stagnation rather than growth.

Another problem with organised religion is that it often seems something of a ‘bolt-on’ extra, a spiritual lifejacket, as it were. As long as you go along to church / synagogue / temple every week, and remember to say your prayers, then it doesn’t matter what you think, say or even do during the greater part of your day-to-day existence.
This separatism means that all too often, the essential teachings of the faith (whichever it may be) are not being truly lived.
Many people call me an idealist – and they don’t mean it as a compliment!
“Yeah, yeah,” they say. “That’s great in principle, but the world’s just not like that.”
Ye-e-s. And why exactly?!
We need to live our spiritual truths, not keep them as some distant possibilities that might be real-ised one day. This is one day.

Posted by: Nunyabiz Apr 8 2009, 04:50 PM

Actually Zeitgeists interpretation of Christianity is pretty much dead on and well researched from valid sources not the bunkum listed there by Sanders.

It is rather common knowledge that Isis was just the personification of Virgo like most of the other virgin deities.
Isis was a virgin because that is what the MYTH personified VIRGO the VIRGIN.
Isis was also given many different names Isis-Meri just being one of 100s.

"Meri- Isis as the goddess of the sea" is the correct name as it was written.

http://www.egyptancient.net/isidenames.htm

Isis was just as much a virgin as any of the many other virgin deities throughout history.

Posted by: lunk Apr 8 2009, 11:42 PM

QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Apr 8 2009, 01:50 PM) *
Actually Zeitgeists interpretation of Christianity is pretty much dead on and well researched from valid sources not the bunkum listed there by Sanders.


Sanders goes into much more detail and depth about this topic,
than Zeitgeist did.


imo, lunk

Posted by: Nunyabiz Apr 11 2009, 09:16 PM

QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 7 2009, 01:42 AM) *
Sanders goes into much more detail and depth about this topic,
than Zeitgeist did.


imo, lunk


Shame it was all wrong

Posted by: lunk Apr 13 2009, 08:55 AM

QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Apr 11 2009, 06:16 PM) *
Shame it was all wrong


All wrong?

That's not right.

There must be something correct somewhere.

Both are referring to interpretation of myth,
which is more a matter of opinion, in meaning,
than to a right or wrong dichotomy.

I think that it is more important to ask,
where does this lead?

Posted by: Willow Apr 13 2009, 10:49 AM

I agree, Lunk... on both points.

I've seen so many well sourced, well reasoned, well researched arguments that totally contradict each other that I've given up accepting (or for that matter denying) anyone's interpretation of anything.

IMHO, it's all just 'signposts'... and signposts to what is indeed the question.

(And that said, Sanders stuff is just as valid as anyone else's... IMHO, he's doing a great job and I for one, appreciate the variety of perspectives.)

Posted by: maturin42 Apr 13 2009, 11:42 AM

One observation that gets quoted often here in these postings is "If you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities", or words to that effect.

A common thread in human history is religion. Religions codify absurdities. They are drilled into unsuspecting children at a very early age. It is conditioning for an adulthood in which governments will continue to spray absurdities, like, for example, Iraq being a threat to the United States, at a passive and naive public, who think that being a citizen of a "free country" only requires them to send money to the government annually and go through the motions of registering a "vote" for one of two hand-picked candidates that they barely know anything meaningful about, into a voting machine without audit capability or written record.

Nothing new here. Thus it has ever been. That, to me is the meaning of Part 1 of Zeitgeist. It isn't particularly a slam at Christianity any more than the other myths exemplified in it. Christianity just happens to be the most prevalent collection of absurdities at the moment and relatively recent (if you don't count Mormonism, Scientology, etc.).

Posted by: lunk Apr 14 2009, 05:11 PM

The thing about most religions, is that they give an individual, community.
That can be idealized as having greater authority than the government.

Idealistic communities, get in the way of a one world, centralized, governance,
over the complete dominion over the individual.
...sort of like family,
both of which,
are being destroyed,
as there can be only one central authority,
in the future, for all, and everybody,
in this long planned crazy agenda.

Tricking the will of the people,
to change at,
the whim of the state.

(edit), just to make it sound better

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)