Zeitgeistmovie.com, Joe, Religious People, Anybody???

[kmitchell]

Ignorance is bliss. Most people I talk to that have seen this video just deny all of it. One of those first 9/11 films was the main reason  why I canceled my meeting with the recruiter last year. I don't want to die fighting people who have done nothing to me or my fellow Americans. And I understand they have every reason to fight against us and protect their families.

I thought that, overall, it was poorly done. The first part was interesting, but most of the connections were tenuous at best. Then when they went into the 911 part and just started rehashing the old myths that have been thoroughly disproven so many times, I pretty much lost interest in it. Instead of trying to give us a disjointed cornucopia of conspiracy theories, they should have focused on one and made an attempt to document it better.
 

[The White Tiger]

I don't get why we continue to support completely debunked evidence? I guess because the purported evidence - as first linked by De Krester - somehow is different and more real when reported by someone else?

As stated before - the myth/lie linking Horus was stolen and replaced by Jesus is a falsehood previously debunked. I'll re-post it for those that missed a few months ago - De Krester's allegations regarding Christians rehashing the Sun God religion and replacing virtuous Horus with a mythical Jesus (oops, sorry joe, it now appears your argument is that Jesus was real - he just isn't divine)! Obviously true because Jesus is really Horus!!

 - except that's not quite true either and it appears you knew that already because I pointed it out in this OLD post:

well since we've done this already it seems a bit moot, but I have added a couple new data points to the historicity of Christ:

The Gospel of Matthew dates the birth of Christ to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC.

A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . .

"suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

...Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea until 44 CE. According to the Gospels and Josephus, Pilate sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion for insurrection. The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of black limestone was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, a port city in the province of Iudaea, bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[10] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus iudaeae), that is, prefect/governor of Iudaea.

So, we know Pilate was real, as Pilate was the one who judged Jesus being established in the Gospels.

In AD 112 - In a letter to Trajan, Pliny the Younger mentions his slaying of Christians....who "were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds..."

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings.

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian (I probably don't have to mention that Jewish historians really have no reason to support the person -Jesus Christ - Christianity was based on). On two occasions, in his "Jewish Antiquities", he mentions Jesus.

Jesus as a rehash of Horus - you mean the S-T-R-E-T-C-H that De Krester tries to make to kink the two? Well lets look at that....

MYTH OF HORUS, OSIRIS, ISIS AND SET

“Horus� was the name of two gods “Horus the Elder� and “Horus the Child�.  Later they were regarded as one god.

Horus the Elder was represented either as a falcon or as a human with a falcon’s head.  He was the sky god of Upper Egypt and brother of the gods Osiris, Isis and Set (the god of evil). Osiris and his wife Isis were the parents of Horus the Child. In the myth Set murdered Osiris, and Horus the Child later killed Set. (Cavendish 1980; Graves 1968)

In the myth the murder of Osiris happened this way: Set invited Osiris to a banquet and offered a gift of a wooden chest to anyone of the right size to fit exactly inside.  The chest was designed to fit only Osiris.  After Osiris was inside the chest was closed and set adrift and Osiris died.

Isis the wife later found the chest and posthumously conceived a son � Horus the Child � by Osiris. Set then found the body of Osiris and cut him into 14 pieces and scattered them throughout Egypt. Isis searched and found the pieces and, using magic, fitted them back together and in that way resurrected Osiris.

Horus the Child was then born and later took revenge against Set for his father’s (Osiris’) murder.

The story contains much more detail. But even the detail as given shows virtually nothing in common with the gospel accounts about God the Father, Jesus, the virgin birth and the resurrection...

Better try someone who hasn't heard this myth....

So, now that we know we have texts outside the Bible, some actually hostile to Christianity, establishing the person of Jesus - because as we all know - we cannot accept the Bible as being factual - oops that's not quite true either...as the Bible's archeological veracity is accepted.

So now we have extra-Biblical texts attesting to the veracity of the person of Jesus, we have eyewitness accounts IN the Bible attesting to the divinity of Christ - but because we have ongoing research that currently cannot be used to actually disprove Christianity, Jesus divinity, or the veracity of the case for Christ - just the mere existence of this un-vetted data is proof enough for you that the allegation is more acceptable than the text it purports to counter. Except that it hasn't actually stood up to any archeological vetting.

So - if the places in the Bible are real, how much credence does this leand to the subjects in the Bible also being real?

You really don't need to make fantastic leaps to justify dis-belief in something that you already have stated you can't accept. If only Pliny the Younger had mentioned killing followers of Horus for teaching peaceful things...

There really isn't anything new in these allegations, just further proof of intolerance towards Jesus Christ. And a rabid desire to disprove the NEED for Jesus Christ. We were warned counterfiets would arise seeking to trade on Jesus Christs message - in order to gain earthly wealth...etc. So this doesn't surprise me. The eager attack on Christianity and Jesus Christ and those who believe in him are also not surprising. Sad, but not surprising.

[ufojoe]

If you had actually paid attention, Buckeye, (something that seems almost impossible nowadays) you would
known that I separate the historical Jesus from the Pauline Christ figure. And yes, lots of the details of Jesus'
life are very similar to Horus' life. And many other Messiahs.

[The White Tiger]

Yes - but only with the Bible do we have accepted Archeological facts proving it's historical accuracy. Continuing to post Horus Jesus drivel - does not disprove Jesus.

Paul came many years after Jesus and his half brother James - Paul sought to correct error that had begun to creep in. There is not a difference between what Jesus and James taught and what Paul taught. Think of it in terms that Paul continued the thought of salvation by extension of Grace by Jesus AND works - which proved a true change while drawing others to investigate. Paul corrected a belief that man could have ANY part in his own salvation. He had to actually say that a man could be saved - but not please God with his actions.

Pauls doctrine is that you can be saved  by grace through Jesus work - and yet do no good works of your own - but this tended to turn folks off from listening to what you had to say. Since our work is to win by persuading others to believe on Jesus - if you lost influence you lost opportunity to persuade. Paul's point was to be both hearers of Jesus words (faith comes by hearing) and doers of Jesus works - which will bring glory onto Jesus by your actions and to populate his kingdom with believers saved from the consequences of deviating from the perfect standard - only because they accepted their seperation from God, while accepting Jesus perfect and complete sacrifical payment of of the debt created when we broke either the spirit (intent - or zeitgeist) OR the letter of the Mosaic law.

Many outside the faith lack the understanding - that only comes by believing - and these same continue to mistake it for an apparent contradiction.

As you should now be able to see, there just isn't any contradiction.

[ufojoe]

How much have you studied about James that you can make such definitive statements?

And have you read anything that deals with the differences in the Jesus/James message as opposed
to what Paul pushed?