The spirit of the Age

[the Langolier]

"Zeitgeist" is originally a German expression that means "the spirit of the age". It refers to the ethos of a select group of people, that express a particular (predominantly post-modern) world view, which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression. It describes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era.

If our own government was responsible for what happened at St. Mary's and Three Waters, if our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost 100,000 people, would you really want to know? -Inspector Finch, V for Vendetta

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. -Matthew 11:15 (et al)

Zeitgeist: the movie

[Jester]

W.

T.

F.

-Jester

[Munkay]

Zeitgeist

Call it Zeitgeist or Loose Change, its a film full of seductive editing, entrancing audio tracks, and facts liberally thrown around with little reference to their sources. It sucks in the public who feel empowered by this 'fact finding', as if they are unveiling a big conspiracy that up until now has been pulled firmly over our eyes. Personally I've had it up to my earlobes with these 'truth awakening' films.

As a holder of a degree in ancient civ, I find a lot of these poached facts of ancient history rather laughable. With that said, I'm not trying to declare myself some kind of expert on the field - believe me, four years of undergrad doesn't even tip the iceberg. But I was lucky enough to take classes with some of the truly heavy hitters of Classical studies. They often warned over excited undergraduates over the problems of drawing these factual connections between one religion and the other. Do they exist? Certainly. But to overindulge in the importance of these links is troublesome. Particularly because to draw the conclusions like they do in the film isn't factual - yes, the individual pieces may be correct, but they paint an entirely flawed summary of history.

If you don't believe this is a big problem, look at more contemporary history. There are many books out there showing the problem of presenting history with an agenda - think about Stalin wiping people out of the history books, or the minimizing of the suffering Native Americans endured by the hands of settlers. Heck, even look at US history in school books vs. the history presented in Howard Zinn's 'A People's History...'. No matter which one you agree with, its rather clear hunting and pecking points of history and then stringing them in a line doesn't present how things actually were. Moreover, it highlights how dangerous such a practice can be when done with an agenda in hand.

And I know it's easy to say "but look, Horus is so much like Jesus! The story of Jesus must be a huge cover up!". But to jump from the conclusion that religious similarities mean it's all a sham (a jump Zeitgeist likes to make for you), is really a bad way to approach it.

Assume just for one moment the life of Christ was real, and he was in fact the son of God. The New Testament is a collection of accounts written by real human beings - yes, I know the Bible is the word of God, but in the case of the New Testament it's the word of God through the lens of the apostles. A handful of men writing their accounts of history are bound to have comparative discrepancies. Moreover, in places where information wasn't known (or followers yearning to connect a religious figure to a religious tradition), cultural references are bound to show up to fill in the blanks. In other words, when in doubt refer to the standard religious stories.

Add in the myriad of books/accounts written about the life of Jesus, earnest attempts to weed out the false ones, and political pressures to push out others, and creating the standardized Canon becomes very troublesome. The Bible is an imperfect beast, made by some imperfect creatures. Is that really an earth shattering revelation? Whether you have faith in the truth of the bible, or disdain for the scripture, pointing out the problems of human religious history doesn't mean religion itself is a scam. So let's be honest with ourselves and realize jumping from the conclusion 'human religious history is flawed and interconnected' doesn't equate to an answer that 'its all false, a deeply coordinated and well thought out plan to dominate everyone by evil masterminds'.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

...a deeply coordinated and well thought out plan to dominate everyone by evil masterminds'.
...

Evil is a strong word. I would say for the skeptic you might be jaded from the examination of Rome's ability to acknowledge "truth" such as was revealed by Galileo or Copernicus has tipped their position of whether the church at that time was more interested in power and dogma, rather than the pursuit of truth and enlightenment.

I would say an analytical approach would review the available documentation in the context of the various periods of organized Christianity. You have the early 1st to 3rd century period focus on the secrecy, persecution and underground church in Rome, Greece, Assyria, and Middle East. This was followed by the liberation of Christians by Constantine, and the subsequent Byzantine Empire up to the early 1200's, then the middle and dark ages up to the dawn of the modern age in early 1600's with the printing press.

[Taem]

Evil is a strong word. I would say for the skeptic you might be jaded from the examination of Rome's ability to acknowledge "truth" such as was revealed by Galileo or Copernicus has tipped their position of whether the church at that time was more interested in power and dogma, rather than the pursuit of truth and enlightenment.

I would say an analytical approach would review the available documentation in the context of the various periods of organized Christianity. You have the early 1st to 3rd century period focus on the secrecy, persecution and underground church in Rome, Greece, Assyria, and Middle East. This was followed by the liberation of Christians by Constantine, and the subsequent Byzantine Empire up to the early 1200's, then the middle and dark ages up to the dawn of the modern age in early 1600's with the printing press.

How ironic that I made a small write-up on this very information just a few days ago on another forum. Since it seems to fit in so logically in this conversation, I might as well drop what I wrote in here:

Hello and welcome to this topic. In this discussion, I will attempt to disprove the concept of Biblical Infallibility as held by most conservative modern-day Christians: You can read about Biblical Infallibility here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility. I will have you know that I have taken most of the links in this post from Widipedia for ease of reference, however before we begin, I feel it prudent to explain a little about myself; I have personally done research on the subject of religion in both libraries, religious sanctuaries, and colleges, and have read a good deal of their books on the matter. I have studied on religious subjects at my local college, and have educated myself in both the English and Greek annotated versions of the Holy Bible, both Kings James and Dakes versions. Suffice it to say, I feel experienced enough to stoke up a discussion of such topic, if anything to stem the ignorance that spews on the web about biblical infallibility.

I will focus this discussion on the following three-topics: 1) How the current version of the bible was put together, 2) How the current version of the bible has fallibility, and 3) What does the current version of the bible share with other major religions.



I think we should begin “at the beginning” if you will.

How the current version of the bible was put together:
1. Proof of the idea of one singular god has existed since beginning of man. In Egypt before the pharos, they believed in a singular god; ironic perhaps that this is where the Holy Bible was started? You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#History_of_monotheism
2. Israelites create a name for this god calling him Jehovah. They record their history interjecting political jargon related to god; this encompasses the entire Old Testament. You can read about the history of the bible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
3. Jesus Christ, a Gnostic, comes along and gets swept up in Rome’s bureaucracy; since he is a Jew, he is assumed to be the prophesized son of god; a title which Jesus does not deny. Jesus’ Gnostic teachings make their way into the bible and are recorded as the Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John chapters; its interesting to note how many of Jesus’ teachings directly contradict Old Testament teachings. You can read about Jesus and his relation to Gnosticism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Other_early_views
4. Paul of Tarsus comes along adding in Rome’s own version to the bible; not only does he discount hundreds of holy texts written between this time and the past showing written devotion to this singular god, but he alters many passages in the bible to reflect Rome’s stance on these subjects. Read about this “self-appointed apostle” here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsu..._Pauline_corpus

Already, the picture is not so rosy as pastors would have you believe - BTW, all pastors are required to attend a seminary school which pretty much brain-washes them into believing they know everything relating to the bible, which is ironic because they are not taught the truth. So we have a concept of a monotheism god stolen from the Egyptians by the Israelites before their escape from Egypt, then a book written in several chapters describing the Israelites history, including their ceremonies and several prominent figures, and how this all relates to their god. Then Jesus Christ the Gnostic comes along with his ideas, several of which contradict the Israelites bible (such as, “it’s okay if you don’t attend church on Sunday because if you hold God true in your heart, then he is in your heart;” such a fine-and-dandy concept if it didn’t directly conflict with the major teachings of the Old Testament). So now we have two separate points of view in one book, the New Testament with 4-chapters written by Jesus’ apostles after his death. Then comes along this Roman, Paul of Tarsus, a self appointed Apostle of Christ, who goes about altering the bible to Rome’s liking with concepts that conflict with both prior teachings (the Israelites and Jesus’) but support Greek mythology (i.e. multiple layers of Heaven/Hell, bodily resurrection, etc.). This is well documented not only in the links I have provided, but by several historians all over the world. So now we have a book which has three completely different points of view about one monotheism god all competing against each other… interesting!



Now on too the fun stuff…

How the current version of the bible has fallibility:
Before we begin this section, I must acknowledge that there are quite literally thousands more contradictions in the Holy Bible than what I will present for you below. Also, for every contradiction, some pastor somewhere has stuck his neck out and gave an answer (example: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#85). Just check “Bible Contradiction” and “Bible Contradiction Answers” on Google for hundreds of sites. Most of these answers are quite satisfactory from a linguistics, logistical, or even grammatical, point of view, however a small amount are unexplainable for the “the bible is infallible” crowd, except through extreme flamboyant claims that are impossible to believe.

(GENESIS) FOWL FROM WATERS OR GROUND?
GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

COMMENTARY: I think the contradiction of these passages speak for themselves.

(GENESIS) WHICH FIRST--BEASTS OR MAN?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

COMMENTARY: I think the contradiction of these passages speak for themselves.

(GENESIS) ORDER OF CREATION
As you will clearly see, the order of creation is recorded differently twice in Genesis.

Here is the order in the from 1-Genesis; the Priestly tradition:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...is;&version=31;

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...02;&version=31;

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

COMMENTARY: In 1-Genesis, god says, “it is good” after each of his labors and rests on the seventh day being satisfied with his works, however in 2-Genesis, God has to fix things up as he goes.

(JESUS) WHO IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

COMMENTARY: Okay, this is an obvious contradiction, unless you get flamboyant with your ideas. In this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_...hter_of_Heli.3F it suggests two possible explanations, but both render Joseph not the father of Christ. If Joseph was NOT the father of Christ, then all prophesies saying Jesus would be born through the loins of David, the prophesies that trace Jesus’ family roots from Joseph all the way down to David/Abraham are false!

(JESUS) THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham (verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name these two lists share between David and Jesus is JOSEPH.

COMMENTARY: How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father (see next contradiction)? While some biblical historians try and associate Mary as one of these lineages, it isn’t true at all! REAL historians will tell you the truth: that women were suppressed in these ages, and a recorded lineage of any woman would have been unthinkable!

(JESUS) HUMAN VS. GHOSTLY IMPREGNATION
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

COMMENTARY: The prophecy said Jesus would come from the loins of David/Abraham, but Mary is not part of the blood-line, so if Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, he would NOT be the man from prophesy. My take on this is that Joseph and Mary were fooling around, but he didn’t ‘penetrate’ her so technically, she was still a virgin when she got pregnant – mystical Holy Ghost, or common science?

(JESUS) JESUS' FIRST SERMON PLAIN OR MOUNT?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

COMMENTARY: I think the contradiction of these passages speak for themselves.

(JESUS) WHERE WAS JESUS THREE DAYS AFTER HIS BAPTISM?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
(various trapsing)

COMMENTARY: Read the passages in the bible if your confused. I think the contradiction of these passages speak for themselves.

(JESUS) WHAT DID THEY GIVE HIM TO DRINK?
MATTHEW 27:34 (vinegar)

MARK 15:23 (wine with myrrh)

COMMENTARY: I'm too lazy to transcribe the exact passage right now, however I think the contradiction of these passages speak for themselves.

(JESUS) JESUS' LAST WORDS
MATTHEW 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUKE 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOHN 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

COMMENTARY: This is Jesus’ last words! Everyone hears him clear as day because he shouts them out with his dying breath; they cannot be mistaken, yet somehow they are, three times… While I have heard rumors of Jesus being a myth, I don’t believe that, however I can see with documentation like this, it would seem Jesus’ apostles would write anything to attract followers after his death, even if it meant writing down bogus stuff.

(JESUS) WHOM DID THEY SEE AT THE TOMB?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
<span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: Jesus appeared to them later on the way to tell the disciples]

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
<span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: Was this Jesus at all? It says he was risen the ‘next’ day and then ministered to Mary]

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
<span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: This was immediately upon entering the tomb]

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
<span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: She then turns around and sees the ghost of Jesus]

COMMENTARY: While far-fetched, it seems to me there might have been two angles that rolled away the rock while the two Mary’s were on their way to the tomb. Jesus appeared to them. Problem is the timelines don’t match-up at all!

WAR OR PEACE?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

COMMENTARY: I find it funny how biblical authors will use god’s name to accentuate their points! Writers error, or psychotic god?

MOVED DAVID TO ANGER?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

COMMENTARY: “Who” moved David? Again, the interpretation is left up to the biblical authors who use god’s name indiscriminately to accentuate their points!

HOW MANY STALLS AND HORSEMEN?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

COMMENTARY: I think the contradiction of these passages speak for themselves.

RABBITS DO NOT CHEW THEIR CUD
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

COMMENTARY: Cud is the portion of food that a ruminant returns from the first stomach to the mouth to chew a second time. Rabbits do NOT chew their cud! How funny that this is supposedly one of Gods holy commandments.

JUDAS’ DEATH
Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

COMMENTARY: Did Judas “blow-up”, or hang himself?

YEARS OF FAMINE
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: So God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

COMMENTARY: This was David’s last sin; he repents and then god offers him a choice but as you can see, there is a difference in years. Also, in Greek one says pestilence while the other says plague.

GOD BE SEEN?
EXODUS 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
EXODUS 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
EXODUS 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." <span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: God shows part of his body to Moses]
EXODUS 33:23 "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
EXODUS 33:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

JOHN 1:18 "No man hath [seen] God at any time." <span style="color:limegreen">[GREEK: to “fully comprehend”]
1 TIMOTHY 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." <span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: In 2-Kings 2:11, Elija the prophet sees and talks with god before ascending to heaven]

COMMENTARY: While John 1:18 could simply be talking about grasping the reality of which is god, I still think the contradiction of these passages speaks for themselves in 1-Timothy 6:16.

TEMPTS?
GEN 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

JAMES 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

COMMENTARY: In numerous places in the Holy Bible, it states – as does Jesus and Paul of Tarsus – that the 10-commandments are direct from god, have been and will always be, as in since God’s inception, these laws have been laid down. From a god who is supposedly only good and cannot conceive of evil, why would he ‘tempt’ Abraham with a mission to kill his son, which by the way is a direct violation of his 10-commandments?

DOES EVERY MAN SIN?
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;
PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

COMMENTARY: JO1 3:9 is a letter to the church about Jesus basically saying born again Christians don’t sin, but this is obviously untrue and directly contradicts other passages.

HOW MANY CHILDREN DID MICHAL, THE DAUGHTER OF SAUL, HAVE?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

COMMENTARY: This is actually a typo and in SA2 21:8 should actually be Merab. Just more proof that this book is man-made.

HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

COMMENTARY: Another typist error, no doubt.

DID THOSE WITH SAUL/PAUL AT HIS CONVERSION HEAR A VOICE?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. <span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: There was a ‘light’ around Saul; this narration is told in the 2nd person point of view]

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. <span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: This narration is told in the 1st person point of view]

COMMENTARY: Obviously two different authors retelling ancient tales from memory that have been distorted over time.

JUDGING
1 COR 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV) <span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: This is in regards to Christians judging the world]

1 COR 4:4 “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.”
1 COR 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

COMMENTARY: So should the spiritual man judge all things, or nothing?

GOD CHANGE?
MALACHI 3:6 I the LORD do not change.
JAMES 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
1 SAMUEL 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.

JONAH 3:10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
GENESIS 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

COMMENTARY: Just shows how the authors use God’s name to further their written agenda instead; they succeed in making the Israelites god look like wishy-washy.

DESTRUCTION OF CITIES (WHAT SAID WAS JEREMIAH WAS ZECHARIAH)
MAT 27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel
MAT 27:10 and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
<span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: Annotated bible says Jeremiah’s name might have been added by a copyist, because it should be Zechariah]

ZECHARIAH 11:11 It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the LORD.
ZECHARIAH 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
ZECHARIAH 11:13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

COMMENTARY: This is suppose to be a prophesy, however the prophesy is in reference to Zechariah, not Jeremiah, however in Jeremiah, there is a chapter in which he does sell a lamb for 30 silver. My conclusion is that there was never a prophesy here to begin with; just another case of authors using whatever means (threat of prophesy in this case) to further their points!

SOLOMON'S OVERSEERS
I KINGS 9:23 (550)

II CHRONICLES 8:10 (250)

COMMENTARY: Another typist error, no doubt.

WHEN DID BAASHA DIE?
I KINGS 16:6-8 (26th year of the reign of Asa)

1 CHRONICLES 16:1 (36th year of the reign of Asa)

COMMENTARY: Another typist error, no doubt.

HOW OLD WAS AHAZIAH WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN?
2 KINGS 8:26 22

2 CHRONICLES 22:2 42

COMMENTARY: Another typist error, no doubt.

WHO WAS JOSIAH'S SUCCESSOR?
2 CHRONICLES 36:1 And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and made him king in Jerusalem in place of his father.

JEREMIAH 22:11 For this is what the LORD says about Shallum son of Josiah, who succeeded his father as king of Judah but has gone from this place: "He will never return.

COMMENTARY: It is suggested by biblical scholars that this man had two names, but was the same man. I suggest it’s just another incorrect entry.

HOW MANY APOSTLES WERE IN OFFICE BETWEEN THE RESURECTION AND ASCENTION?
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve (12)

Matthew 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Matthew 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
Matthew 27:5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (11)

Acts 1:9-26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (11) <span style="color:limegreen">[NOTE: Mathias was not elected until after the resurrection]

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. (11)

COMMENTARY: 1 Corinthians 15:5 may have just put the wrong number; again, writers error. Hard to believe for an infallible book.

(NOTE: This particular site has the most well thought out explanations to the excuses any hard-liner Christian will give you towards biblical infallibility, as well as the most comprehensive list of realistic contradictions I have ever seen, although a few can be easily explained: http://www.infidels.orgbrary/modern/jim...ml#introduction and look up bible versus here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ )



Can we make some sense of all this please?

What does the current version of the bible share with other major religions:
I believe I have adequately proved that for the most part, the information contained within the Holy Bible is “man-made”, or at best altered towards man's liking. But what does this mean? Surly there is some truth to religion, not just a method of controlling people? Truly, if there is an omni-present consciousness we’d like to call “god”, wouldn’t his energy be present in ALL things living, and in all major religions around the globe?

I think what everybody really wants to know is what connection does the Holy Bible share with all the major religions on the Earth, and what "truth" can be garnered from this information if there is any.

In the Budist bible, <span style="color:red">etc… yada yada.

<span style="color:red"> I have the information on hand, just too lazy ATM to retype it all up. Perhaps I'll just get links and paste the info in this topic. FYI, before all the major religions split into different factions (such as hindu-buddists, catholic christians, etc...) they all had an equivalent of the 10-commandments in them; this is proof in my mind that there is a higher consciousness involved in every major religion in this world that desires rule/order and justice.

[Munkay]

How ironic that I made a small write-up on this very information just a few days ago on another forum. Since it seems to fit in so logically in this conversation, I might as well drop what I wrote in here:

A very nice write up MEAT.

I believe we both agree that the words of the Bible were written by men, and by clear analysis of internal structure (like you have done) and study of early Christianity (which is fascinating if you're unfamiliar with it) ,the effects of man's fallible hand is easily visible.

Assuming that much is true, I would love to hear what impact loungers believe something like this has on Christianity as a religion. Does it invalidate the Bible as the word of God? Does it weaken Christianity in any way?

Cheers,

Munk

[Bun-Bun]

How ironic that I made a small write-up on this very information just a few days ago on another forum. Since it seems to fit in so logically in this conversation, I might as well drop what I wrote in here:

Where the Bible and I part company - tasty crustaceans!

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

On the original topic, I haven't watched the movie, and probably won't, because when I checked the list of sources I couldn't get the phrase "nut cluster" out of my head. Citing Alex Jones ... sheesh!

[Taem]

A very nice write up MEAT.

I believe we both agree that the words of the Bible were written by men, and by clear analysis of internal structure (like you have done) and study of early Christianity (which is fascinating if you're unfamiliar with it) ,the effects of man's fallible hand is easily visible.

Assuming that much is true, I would love to hear what impact loungers believe something like this has on Christianity as a religion. Does it invalidate the Bible as the word of God? Does it weaken Christianity in any way?

Cheers,

Munk

On the other forum which I posted this, I had some interesting responses; here is a post of mine in reply to a response I received which I found particularly fun to make:

"I don't feel it's appropriate to get into that on these boards. Your talking about metaphysical beliefs; I'm trying to stick to the written biblical facts, sorry."

i didn't want to discuss the metaphysical realm. i simply wanted to know whether you believe in the most fundamental part in christianity, which is christ being more than human (a closed question). for me this is the crucial point in christianity, once proven wrong, then christianity won't work. what you've been describing as christianity is the poor execution of the matter.

I cannot "prove" or "disprove" that the man known as Jesus Christ was 'more-than-human' or not; from what is written in the Holy Bible, he preformed great miracles in front of thousands of people. The trouble is, modern-day magicians do this all the time, and to top it off, there is very little historical information on what Jesus Christ did, other than his Gnostic beliefs and his death.

I can, however prove that most of what is written about Jesus has been misinterpreted for a very long time; for example, it is written that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, however if this were true, then he wouldn't have been from the lineage of David at all as the prophesies stated; my take on this is in my original post. Besides, after doing much research with Jehovah's Witnesses, I have learned that the Holy Ghost is nothing more than the "action" of god, such as "God went for a 'run' "; it is used to describe the actions God does throughout the Bible (I suggest you find yourself one of those small JW bible study books and look up 'Holy Ghost'; the JW's have really done their homework, and you will be surprised!). Because of this, I do not think the Holy Ghost is an entity at all, but a manifestation of God's will; this being the case, you can only surmise it was God's will that Joseph and Mary fooled around and she got pregnate even though he didn't penetrate her.

For a look at the prophesies leading up to Christ's birth, you can look here: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=553

The Aztecs say a white man clothed similarly to how Jesus was clothed telling them he would return. This is why they allowed the Spaniards to invade them instead of attacking them because they thought it was this being. Other major religions give nod to a redeemer, but absolutely do not mention that he is the "way, truth, and the light. No man comes to the father except through" [him]. Perhaps there will be a redeemer, but I tend to view what is written in the Christian bible as just another form of control that Rome instituted on their constituents; if it were "truth", I feel in my opinion that it would also be written in the other major religions throughout the world, as the common thread goes.

I always felt it was in direct conflict with what Jesus taught in his books for Christians to believe that, "I'm going to heaven and your not because I believe in Christ and you don't". I really don't want to get into an open debate on the subject, as it is a dead-horse for me in terms of the Indians who never knew him, yada yada blah. You see, after Jesus died, in Christian mythology, he went into Hell and set a new standard for the way a Christian was to live his life, abolishing the old ways of life, but only if you believed in him and worshiped him from that point on. You see, Rome honestly believed they had seen all of the KNOWN WORLD, so this line of thinking made sense, but we all know now that the entire world was NOT discovered at this point, so what happened to all those who did not know or have a personal relationship with Jesus at this point and time? There is much debate on the subject, debate of which I do not want to get into here; just know that is sound an awfully lot like a method for control if you ask me, one only the Romans could have fathomed.

[the Langolier]

Did anyone actually get passed part 1?

[Munkay]

Did anyone actually get passed part 1?

I got about 30 minutes deep before jumping ship. Any reason to continue?

Cheers,

Munk

[Jester]

I got about 30 minutes deep before jumping ship. Any reason to continue?

Cheers,

Munk

Did you get up to the point where it makes the following argument:

Christianity is based on earlier religious traditions.

Therefore, Christianity is a fraud.

Constantine adopted Christianity for political reasons.

People in power know that Christianity is a fraud, but lie to you anyway to control you. Horrible things are done in its name.

Therefore, 9/11 is a lie.

I listened through almost all of it. Needless to say, there isn't anything in there of value. If 9/11 is some kind of conspiracy, someone else needs to prove it, 'cause this sure didn't do the trick.

-Jester

[Taelas]

My personal belief is that religion is bogus. Religion is both a method of control and a way for people to avoid thinking of death.

I don't condemn others for believing in religion, though, at least as long as they do not just do so because they've been taught it's the right thing. I just make it clear that I do not believe in it.

Going from that stance to what they have in that film, however, is quite a leap. A conspiracy? No. While there may be some who do not actually believe in religion who uses it for their own purposes, I think most of today's clergy believes to some extent.

[the Langolier]

Religion is only part 1 of 3, and no more than 10% of the point. Zeitgeist by definition, after all, refers to our current time, and religion has been in the world as long as man.

It's also disappointing to see no one has put any thought as to the relevance of the quotes from my original post (none of which come from the movie itself).

[Bun-Bun]

Religion is only part 1 of 3, and no more than 10% of the point. Zeitgeist by definition, after all, refers to our current time, and religion has been in the world as long as man.

It's also disappointing to see no one has put any thought as to the relevance of the quotes from my original post (none of which come from the movie itself).

I hadn't realized we were being scored. However, if I must ...

I consider the Zeitgeist quote meaningless because the viewpoints expressed on the site are extremely fringe. In no way do they express the sense of our time.

I consider the "V for Vendetta" quote similarly vacuous as all the government-related material is also fringe, extraordinarily nut-flavored, conspiracy theory.

As for the Biblical quote, which I assume is meant to imply we should give credence to the twaddle presented, being "open-minded" and all that. I shall counterquote with Carl Sagan:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

To wit, I contend that to people of sense, all viewpoints are not equal. One must apply some critical thinking along the way.

Alternatively, if the quote is meant to imply that some people will accept the oddest things as Gospel truth, I'm right there with you.

Since you're dancing around the subject, I'm assuming that you find some element of the subjects presented interesting or credible. If you included the link just for its risibility, I'm not sure why you attached the quotes.

[Jester]

Religion is only part 1 of 3, and no more than 10% of the point. Zeitgeist by definition, after all, refers to our current time, and religion has been in the world as long as man.

It's also disappointing to see no one has put any thought as to the relevance of the quotes from my original post (none of which come from the movie itself).

Bun-bun has more or less covered it, but let me sign my agreement here.

This is crackpottery. Rapidfire 'factoids' given without critical context, obvious sources, strung together ominiously with music. It is no more an intellectual argument than a Leni Riefenstahl film. Total non-sequiturs abound, and credibility is not addressed in any way.

Almost all of the 'facts' about 9/11 that sounds so damning when given in the context of the movie have been carefully and thoroughly refuted dozens of times. A quick search of the wikipedia 9/11 conspiracy theory page is enough to find many of them, but it far from exhausts the list.

The quote from Matthew is trivial. Were you really hoping people discussed that one?

The quote from V for Vendetta is something to be careful about. One can ask "what if" until one is blue in the face, but it always has to be bundled together with "what if not," along with "why should I believe this?" If the US government (or, in my case, the Canadian) was responsible for horrible crimes, I'd want to know about them, and *judge them on the facts*. This is not just hypothetical, it has happened many times in my own lifetime. But that doesn't mean you can just accuse people of things, wave your hands in the air, and expect it to stick.

It might bear noticing that crankish conspiracy theory is also in the 'zeitgeist.'

-Jester

[Munkay]

Bun-bun has more or less covered it, but let me sign my agreement here.

I'm in agreement with Bun-bun and Jester.

If you want more of a response or discussion, I'm not sure I can say more than I did in my first paragraph of my first post:

Call it Zeitgeist or Loose Change, its a film full of seductive editing, entrancing audio tracks, and facts liberally thrown around with little reference to their sources. It sucks in the public who feel empowered by this 'fact finding', as if they are unveiling a big conspiracy that up until now has been pulled firmly over our eyes. Personally I've had it up to my earlobes with these 'truth awakening' films.

Cheers,

Munk

[the Langolier]

I consider the Zeitgeist quote meaningless because the viewpoints expressed on the site are extremely fringe. In no way do they express the sense of our time.

It's just a definiton of the term for those unfamiliar without affiliation or references to/from the movie.

I consider the "V for Vendetta" quote similarly vacuous as all the government-related material is also fringe, extraordinarily nut-flavored, conspiracy theory.

The themes of these two movies are identical. They also both use the government as the antagonist, but whether it be an individual, industry, authority, organization or philosophy, it doesn't matter.

As for the Biblical quote, which I assume is meant to imply we should give credence to the twaddle presented, being "open-minded" and all that.

It is rather meant as a "proceed with caution" warning, fitting with the religious nature of Part 1. In the bible it was often used in connection with a parable, highlighting the value of the underlying principle over the circumstances of the story itself. Those that heard gained insight; those that heard benefitted little. It is meant to suggest to glean what knowledge and inspiration you can from the movie through the hype and confusion.

Since you're dancing around the subject, I'm assuming that you find some element of the subjects presented interesting or credible. If you included the link just for its risibility, I'm not sure why you attached the quotes.

Half of Part 1 basically argues that religion is derived from astrology. I find the idea interesting, but the execution lacking. I never really understood much about the zodiac, but I learned quite a bit from the movie. I found the symbolism between the zodiac constelations and Christ fascinating. The comparison to the "ages" was quite a stretch, however. More than once a reference to "two fish" or a "water bearer" appearing in the bible seemed like it was the most arbitrary connection you could make.

I was interested in the parallels between the christ-types of various belief systems. There are so many parallels in fact that you can find information about many old testament stories "plagarized" from earlier (mostly pagan) religions. I see it from an angle more like the film does - that they all have a common source. From a christian point of view, it would be the original gospel as delivered to Adam and Eve and later by Noah. As groups divided, subsequent emergence of religion would be primarily influenced or based on the ideas from the original.

[Taelas]

The themes of these two movies are identical. They also both use the government as the antagonist, but whether it be an individual, industry, authority, organization or philosophy, it doesn't matter.

The theme of V for Vendetta is to fight against oppression (even though that's not V's motive; he gives Eve the choice, after all).

From what I've heard of Zeitgeist so far, that's not even in there.

[kandrathe]

A very nice write up MEAT.

I believe we both agree that the words of the Bible were written by men, and by clear analysis of internal structure (like you have done) and study of early Christianity (which is fascinating if you're unfamiliar with it) ,the effects of man's fallible hand is easily visible.

Assuming that much is true, I would love to hear what impact loungers believe something like this has on Christianity as a religion. Does it invalidate the Bible as the word of God? Does it weaken Christianity in any way?

Cheers,

Munk

I think to point at discontinuity in English texts is counterproductive.

The first problem is that many parts of the current text are translations of translations. So for example, κάμηλον is used instead of κάμιλον. To be truly scholarly one must learn Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. Then, you also have the embellishments of about a thousand years of transcripts where most of the literate people were religiously motivated to tell larger and larger tales. Now, due to the transcription discipline of the Hebrews (Canters also means Counters where the Hebrew scribes would count to insure that the number of letters, and sentences was equivalent), meaning that very little change happened in the copying process during the first and second centuries. So, this is why finding the Dead Sea Scrolls was very fortuitous in showing accuracy of some of the original sources. Then, one must trust that the Nicene council included and excluded the proper documents. Many of the texts of the Apocrypha and Epigraphia change radically the nature of Christianity. Even the Catholic and Protestant bibles have different selections of texts.

Once you agree upon which words to read, then you can start to discuss what the words actually do mean.

[kandrathe]

My personal belief is that religion is bogus. Religion is both a method of control and a way for people to avoid thinking of death.

I don't condemn others for believing in religion, though, at least as long as they do not just do so because they've been taught it's the right thing. I just make it clear that I do not believe in it.

Going from that stance to what they have in that film, however, is quite a leap. A conspiracy? No. While there may be some who do not actually believe in religion who uses it for their own purposes, I think most of today's clergy believes to some extent.

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

I choose to play video games religiously.