ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[GreNME]

Not that I want to interrupt the current discussion...but I remembered something today.

In the film they make reference to the story from the old testament...regarding Joseph and his 12 brothers...(My memory may be failing me..)

A former mennonite friend of mine was telling me that when she was younger there was frequent comparison between jesus and joseph, which made me wonder why the film or the people that researched the material that the film was based on didn't spend more time on this.

If I were looking for a clues to the origins of chrisitianity I suppose the first place I would look would be in the various jewish writings that preexisted the events of the new testament.

I guess I bring it up because if one had the time to go over the previous jewish writings in detail I suspect one might find more relevant material from which to base a comparison rather than leaping to egyptian influence.

GreNME- Are you aware of any significant influence between the semitic cultures outside egypt besides the hyksos that you mentioned awhile ago?

Well, the first thing I would point out that the Egyptians weren't semitic, but I doubt you were really getting at that.

It's not a big secret that the whole prophet-hood tale of Jesus was meant to connect him to previous prophets, which included many aspects synchronizing it with Jewish oral tradition, history, and doctrine. The twelve disciples (and the twelve sons of Jacob, of whome Joseph was one) are a direct reference back to the twelve tribes of Israel-- which had by the time of Jesus been whittled down by the first Diaspora. The allusions of Jesus and kingdoms and such are usually references to King David (in fact, two books even claim Jesus directly descended from the line of David). There are other references, including other prophets and, quite naturally, the moshiach prophecy.

All of this, in case it isn't clear, was to establish for the earliest iterations of the followers of Christ his Jewish legitimacy. The Christ story obviously evolved from there-- mostly from the point of Pauline "revelations" and "visions"-- that later opened up the claims of validity from that of not only as the legitimate moshiach (which is exclusive to the Jewish people) to a savior of Jew and Gentile alike.

It's no secret that the origin of Jesus is directly tied to prior Jewish religious iconography and doctrine. It was intentional and not out of the ordinary for the culture. It isn't exactly a complex concept: ancestor-worship through allegory. Many cultures do it. Also, if you're looking for a similarity with Jews and Egyptians (and Chinese, and Greeks, and Norse, and Indo-Aryan, and most aboriginal cultures around the globe), there you have it-- they all looked back into their own respective cultures to form the heroes to move forward into their futures. That happens to be one of the things about Christianity that (thanks to Paul first, Ireneus and loads of others later) makes it so successful across so many cultural and social borders: it took an exclusive religious movement (the Pharasaic priesthood was fairly exclusive) and opened it up to a breadth of post-Hellenistic groups (including post-Hellenistic Jews), which enhanced its inclusiveness and acceptance of just about any cultural behaviors for a few hundred years.

 

[Nick227]

Well, the first thing I would point out that the Egyptians weren't semitic, but I doubt you were really getting at that.

It's not a big secret that the whole prophet-hood tale of Jesus was meant to connect him to previous prophets, which included many aspects synchronizing it with Jewish oral tradition, history, and doctrine. The twelve disciples (and the twelve sons of Jacob, of whome Joseph was one) are a direct reference back to the twelve tribes of Israel-- which had by the time of Jesus been whittled down by the first Diaspora. The allusions of Jesus and kingdoms and such are usually references to King David (in fact, two books even claim Jesus directly descended from the line of David). There are other references, including other prophets and, quite naturally, the moshiach prophecy.

All of this, in case it isn't clear, was to establish for the earliest iterations of the followers of Christ his Jewish legitimacy. The Christ story obviously evolved from there-- mostly from the point of Pauline "revelations" and "visions"-- that later opened up the claims of validity from that of not only as the legitimate moshiach (which is exclusive to the Jewish people) to a savior of Jew and Gentile alike.

The Hebrew word for Jesus, Jeheshuah (Yod, Heh, Shin, Vav, Heh), is also a simple play on one Hebrew word for God, Yahweh (Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh). It just has a letter Shin inserted in the middle - the 3-pronged symbol of "divine fire."

The Qabalist translation of the Hebrew word for Jesus is "the nature of reality is to liberate."

I guess that Zeitgeist doesn't play on the Jewish connection so much because it seems more obvious, given that the story of Jesus comprises the second half of the Bible, the first half of which is predominently Jewish.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

The Hebrew word for Jesus, Jeheshuah (Yod, Heh, Shin, Vav, Heh), is also a simple play on one Hebrew word for God, Yahweh (Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh). It just has a letter Shin inserted in the middle - the 3-pronged symbol of "divine fire."

The Qabalist translation of the Hebrew word for Jesus is "the nature of reality is to liberate."

I guess that Zeitgeist doesn't play on the Jewish connection so much because it seems more obvious, given that the story of Jesus comprises the second half of the Bible, the first half of which is predominently Jewish.

Nick

I always find the "very Christian" anti-semites to be ironic to ridiculous levels. The person central to their religious faith was not only Jewish, but VERY Jewish (assuming the possibility that he existed). This would have been someone who kept halacha (jewish law and personal behavior, including dietary practices), is said to have spoken with (and occasionally referred to as) rabbis, and who essentially is said to have died for speaking out about things that would have been a threat to Roman control. Sure, the anti-semites can make up their fantasy that Jews killed one of their own (Jesus) for whatever reasons they can come up with, but that wouldn't mesh with Jewish or Roman history in this regard. Sort of a religious conspiracy theory, if you will.

 

[Nick227]

I always find the "very Christian" anti-semites to be ironic to ridiculous levels. The person central to their religious faith was not only Jewish, but VERY Jewish (assuming the possibility that he existed). This would have been someone who kept halacha (jewish law and personal behavior, including dietary practices), is said to have spoken with (and occasionally referred to as) rabbis, and who essentially is said to have died for speaking out about things that would have been a threat to Roman control. Sure, the anti-semites can make up their fantasy that Jews killed one of their own (Jesus) for whatever reasons they can come up with, but that wouldn't mesh with Jewish or Roman history in this regard. Sort of a religious conspiracy theory, if you will.

Vaguely related, I see there are Christian CTists now speaking out against Zeitgeist. www.infowarsforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2952

Nick

 

[cisco]

Vaguely related, I see there are Christian CTists now speaking out against Zeitgeist. www.infowarsforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2952

Nick

That's one thing that makes me laugh about Zeitgeist. Most CTists seem to be Christian so I love watching them squirm when a 9/11 Trooth movie says Jesus is fake. The intellectual gymnastics in that thread are breathtaking.

 

[HereticHulk]

That's like saying "Hitler didn't invite Jews to all his dinner parties . . . "


Of course it doesn't bother you. I mean, it's just accusing innocent people of the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens to the tune of exonerating the guilty, right? Nothing to be bothered about there. It's nice to see change happen!


Nope, just not interested. I've studied philosophy and science in school; don't need it from a cheapo documentary with a clear agenda.

Not to derail here, but the same people who may have knowingly let '3000 of its own people' die on 9/11 had no qualms about sending over 3k of its own people to their graves (based on bad intelligence and lies) and 1 Million Iraqi deaths (people who'd otherwise be alive today) for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

 

[GreNME]

Vaguely related, I see there are Christian CTists now speaking out against Zeitgeist. www.infowarsforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2952

Nick

Yeah, the first thing I've asked several people who have extolled that movie to me in real life was, "hey, aren't you religious?" After that, the backpedaling begins...

Not to derail here, but the same people who may have knowingly let '3000 of its own people' die on 9/11 had no qualms about sending over 3k of its own people to their graves (based on bad intelligence and lies) and 1 Million Iraqi deaths (people who'd otherwise be alive today) for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

Yes, I've found that a great deal of the people eating these many conspiracy theories are people who are so completely fed up with the Iraq war that they'll believe the worst things imaginable about the administration to justify their hate of the war. The problem with that reasoning is that the war does not justify the conspiracy theories. Hanlon's Razor trumps vast, all-encompassing, universal conspiracies every time, and has so far managed to have a better score on being correct.

Doing "but, but, Iraq War!" is even more poorly-thought-out than the neo-con mantra of "but, but, Clinton!" when more of the Republican Party were still making excuses for the Bush administration.

 

[HereticHulk]

Yeah, the first thing I've asked several people who have extolled that movie to me in real life was, "hey, aren't you religious?" After that, the backpedaling begins...



Yes, I've found that a great deal of the people eating these many conspiracy theories are people who are so completely fed up with the Iraq war that they'll believe the worst things imaginable about the administration to justify their hate of the war. The problem with that reasoning is that the war does not justify the conspiracy theories. Hanlon's Razor trumps vast, all-encompassing, universal conspiracies every time, and has so far managed to have a better score on being correct.

Doing "but, but, Iraq War!" is even more poorly-thought-out than the neo-con mantra of "but, but, Clinton!" when more of the Republican Party were still making excuses for the Bush administration.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Razor does not apply here.

The Iraq war was not based on incompetence or stupidity.

This Bu$h regime accomplished malice by purposely overlooking intel that proved the preconceived conclusions about WMD's wrong. They also linked Iraq to 9/11. Lies, w/ evil intent and malice. Millions of people are dead and countless injured because of this.

How can this not be malice or evil intent? Are you saying the Bush Admin didn't think anyone would get injured in this little Iraqi scheme?

Once you concede this, the 9/11 LIHOP scenario would have just been a drop in the proverbial bucket that sets the stage for this M.E. plan that is taking shape.

 

[cisco]

Not to derail here, but the same people who may have knowingly let '3000 of its own people' die on 9/11 had no qualms about sending over 3k of its own people to their graves (based on bad intelligence and lies) and 1 Million Iraqi deaths (people who'd otherwise be alive today) for absolutely no good reason whatsoever.

I agree, the war is terrible, and unfounded, and should never have started. I hate this administration for what they've done. For what they've really done. That's part of the reason the 9/11 Trooth fantasies are so offensive to me: they detract from all the real wrongs these people have committed.

Once you concede this, the 9/11 LIHOP scenario would have just been a drop in the proverbial bucket that sets the stage for this M.E. plan that is taking shape.

Mmmm, no. It is still unnecessary, not worth the risk, doesn't make logical sense, and there is no evidence to support it. It's still quite a leap of faith (hey no wonder so many CTers are religious, they're used to taking leaps of faith.)

 

[GreNME]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Hanlon's Razor does not apply here.

The Iraq war was not based on incompetence or stupidity.

Oh, well, I'm glad you've settled this for everyone. Maybe you should let historians, reporters, and while you're at it you might want to go to the AG and make a formal complaint.

Try again. This time, try starting from a neutral premise, not a conspiracy theory one.

This Bu$h regime accomplished malice by purposely overlooking intel that proved the preconceived conclusions about WMD's wrong. They also linked Iraq to 9/11. Lies, w/ evil intent and malice. Millions of people are dead and countless injured because of this.

How can this not be malice or evil intent? Are you saying the Bush Admin didn't think anyone would get injured in this little Iraqi scheme?

Adding words like "evil" and "malice" do not make the deeds you describe (inaccurately, at that) so. As a matter of fact, doing exactly what you are doing is precisely what Bush and his administration did to get the country into the mess in Iraq in the first place. Two hyperbolic wrongs do not make a right.

Once you concede this, the 9/11 LIHOP scenario would have just been a drop in the proverbial bucket that sets the stage for this M.E. plan that is taking shape.

Unfortunately, there's no reason to concede what you propose because what you propose is nothing but "George Bush is evil." That has no meaning to me, and holds no weight in the court of law or significance in the political spectrum. It's just so much more senseless rhetoric and hyperbole at the expense of rationality.

Thanks, my friend, but eight years of that crap was enough for me. I want none of what you're selling if that's the best you have.

 

[HereticHulk]

Oh, well, I'm glad you've settled this for everyone. Maybe you should let historians, reporters, and while you're at it you might want to go to the AG and make a formal complaint.

Try again. This time, try starting from a neutral premise, not a conspiracy theory one.



Adding words like "evil" and "malice" do not make the deeds you describe (inaccurately, at that) so. As a matter of fact, doing exactly what you are doing is precisely what Bush and his administration did to get the country into the mess in Iraq in the first place. Two hyperbolic wrongs do not make a right.



Unfortunately, there's no reason to concede what you propose because what you propose is nothing but "George Bush is evil." That has no meaning to me, and holds no weight in the court of law or significance in the political spectrum. It's just so much more senseless rhetoric and hyperbole at the expense of rationality.

Thanks, my friend, but eight years of that crap was enough for me. I want none of what you're selling if that's the best you have.

I wasn't adding words. These words come from the definition of Hanlon's Razor, which you interjected.

I'm sure you know what malice means!?

Filing a complaint to the AG? Do you mean the AG that just finally admitted the US tortures people? Or the same AG that refuses to investigate or prosecute the criminal torture committed by the CIA? That one? It would seem rather futile to submit a formal complaint to a AG that is derelict on his duties. Wouldn't you say?

Or maybe we could go back and file this complaint to disgraced AG Alberto Gonzales?

He would say he 'didn't recall' getting my complaint anywaze.

But tell me where I exaggerated here? It's not just Bush that is evil, its his entire administration. By evil, I do not mean Satanic, I mean evil like malice, which goes back to your Hanlon's Razor example.

Again, sending a 3k troops to die and causing the premature deaths of 1 million others based on faulty and refuted intel is not malice? What is it?

 

[quixotecoyote]

A letter to the Student Activities Council at my university after they chose to participate in the Z-Day promotion:

I am disappointed the SAC has chosen to show the film "Zeitgeist" on March 15. While universities are supposed to be forums for the open exchange of ideas, a minimum of scholarship and integrity should be present before those ideas are shared.

Leaving aside the poor scholarship where "Zeitgeist" tries to equate Horus to Jesus, the film rapidly descends into a morass of conspiracy theory paranoia. Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy by international bankers, the WTC towers were destroyed by the government with pre-planted explosives, the government plans to destroy America and merge the land into Canada and Mexico, RFID chips will be implanted in all Americans and used for complete government control.

None of these claims can be verified, yet all are presented as facts. Instead of legitimate sourcing, the film uses emotionally manipulative footage of national tragedies, stirring movie clips, and audio/video mismatch tricks.

I hope that if you show this film, you provide students with materials to help accurately evaluate the film's claims and bill it as a conspiracy theory piece rather than merely, as your calendar entry puts it:

"... the most daily watched feature length documentary in Internet history, with a source combined total of views averaging around 70,000 a day or 2.1 million views a month."

I realize that there can be value in showing a conspiracy fantasy as an example of failures in critical thinking. Unfortunately as the date chosen for the showing matches the filmmakers' publicity schedule, I do not believe that has been your intent so far. Hopefully you can turn an misleading experience into an educational one.

 

[cisco]

Again, sending a 3k troops to die and causing the premature deaths of 1 million others based on faulty and refuted intel is not malice? What is it?

Still just stupidity sprinkled with arrogance, Sherlock Einstein. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? He thought it was going to be a march in, wave a few American flags, march out party.

quixotecoyote, thank you for taking the time to write that letter. Will you let us know if/when you get a response? Would you post the name of the university in case anyone else wants to express their concerns?

 

[thesyntaxera]

More info for consideration...GreNME you might want to get your padded helmet ready to protect your head, as it might be banging into the wall.

This is a post from the GM forum...

There are some interesting things to remark at this subject. While Horus is indeed a prototype for Christ this is not that simple. Every nome (equivalent of a state in modern day) had his own temple, and interestingly enough every temple had his own version of myths. In some books that I have there appear almost 20 versions of the same creation myth for each temple in a given area.
Many documentaries portray Horus as the Sun and set as his evil counterpart, darkness. However this is quite wrong. Horus in ancient egypt was never considered as THE SUN. Horus was originally known as The Sky or The Light, both being the same thing in egyptian thought. Horus contained in himself both the moon and the sun.
However, at some period in time, a strange bloodline of pharaos ascended the throne. They were not of egyptian birth, but it is said that they were hyksos which some portray as the jews. A jewish line of pharaohs isent at all that improbable since the bible speaks of Joseph being second in command at the pharaoh's court. An interesting thig starts to happen when the parents of Akhenaton Amenhotep III and his wife, change the story of horus in exactly the same story we know today of that with the virgin mary and christ. At Luxor, the temple base of Amenhotep III he portrays his wife as the virgin, and the offspring Horus, as Akhenaton who later by force would eradicate all religions under his rule and create a monotheistic period. His offspring, King Tut would carry on this new religion unless he was not assasinated.

Now, there is no doubt that Christ is modeled after Horus, but in the Ancient Kingdom, Horus was something entirely different. My question is, who in fact where those line of pharaoh's that were so obsessed with monotheism? It seems to me that they infiltrated egyptian royalty with a clear and precise goal in mind which akhenaton never stoped doing, to destroy all polytheistic religion.

 

[GreNME]

Damn, he almost gets close in so many ways, and goes so far into left field with it he gets ridiculous.

Yes, Horus was never officially "the Sun" by any strict sense. That was Re (called Ra nowadays). Horus didn't have his own temples, though-- he was who the pharaoh was, the pharaoh being the personification and the connection between the Egyptian people and the divine, which is why Egyptian politics were so centralized around the life-long king.

Seriously, if these knobs aren't even going to try to understand the factual history, then it's not really worth my time arguing with each and every one of them. Jan burned his bridge by banning me, showing he's just as bad as the "evil empire" that Zeitgeist portrays by not having the good sense to heed people for whom this kind of study is more than just a passing paranoid interest.

By the way: since you brought it up here, I added the Joseph and Jesus thing on that page I'm working on. Thanks for bringing it up, by the way, because when I went back and looked at the film I couldn't believe how Peter skipped over pretty much every single relevant aspect of the comparison between the two and instead focused on word-games and misleading claims to make a point. It's like these conspiracy theorists can't even take valid information and form a useful thesis from it. They have to twist it up into a ridiculous pretzel to fit their weird theorizing instead of letting the obvious things speak for themselves.

 

[regan69]

Still just stupidity sprinkled with arrogance, Sherlock Einstein. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? He thought it was going to be a march in, wave a few American flags, march out party.

-You MUST be kidding?!! The people in the Bush administration had to know exactly what would happen in Iraq, and in there eyes it is going swimmingly. It doesn't matter if the GOP aren't re-elected, Clinton will keep the bases there (permanently) and keep the oil flowing (Obama will have to toe the line or risks being assassinated). The bases in Afganistan too will be there when the GOP do eventaully return to power (with only 2 parties to chose from it has to come back around in the not too distant future). They are imperialists strategic hawks that play a long game, not idiots.

I think when George said "mission accomplished" what he meant was "stage one complete".

 

[cisco]

-You MUST be kidding?!! The people in the Bush administration had to know exactly what would happen in Iraq, and in there eyes it is going swimmingly. It doesn't matter if the GOP aren't re-elected, Clinton will keep the bases there (permanently) and keep the oil flowing (Obama will have to toe the line or risks being assassinated). The bases in Afganistan too will be there when the GOP do eventaully return to power (with only 2 parties to chose from it has to come back around in the not too distant future). They are imperialists strategic hawks that play a long game, not idiots.

I think when George said "mission accomplished" what he meant was "stage one complete".

Ahh, yes. You're right of course. The Bush administration, along with jref poster regan69 are omniscient. The rest of us poor saps are fallible humans non-party to visions of the future.

Thanks for pointing that out to us, sir.

 

[GreNME]

-You MUST be kidding?!! The people in the Bush administration had to know exactly what would happen in Iraq, and in there eyes it is going swimmingly.

Do you have proof of such an assertion, or is this all based on a feeling? Most evidence in the public domain seems to indicate that out Bumbler-In-Chief and his Veep had some seriously naive and hopelessly incorrect impressions on how things would go, which has so far turned out to be tragically incorrect. If you actually have evidence to the contrary and not just some gut-filled conspiracy reasoning behind that claim, I'd sure like to know. And while you're at it, I'd like to know why you haven't brought this evidence up to any federal prosecutors (not all of them are Republicans, you know).

It doesn't matter if the GOP aren't re-elected, Clinton will keep the bases there (permanently) and keep the oil flowing (Obama will have to toe the line or risks being assassinated). The bases in Afganistan too will be there when the GOP do eventaully return to power (with only 2 parties to chose from it has to come back around in the not too distant future). They are imperialists strategic hawks that play a long game, not idiots.

That means a whole lot of nothing, based on a great deal of emotion-filled nothing, topped with whipped cream and a nothing on top.

I think when George said "mission accomplished" what he meant was "stage one complete".

And I think what you're actually saying is that you let your hatred of Bush cloud your senses to the point where everyone who isn't frothing at the mouth against Bush is part of the evil cabal. But don't let that stop you from actually trying to prove any of your claims. I'll even give you extra points if you can do so without dropping into the religious bigotry that Alex Jones likes to preach, about all the non-Christian groups and homosexuals in this evil cabal that prove the evil-ness of the cabal in the first place, blah blah blah...

But you won't. Speaking without dripping gravitas and apocalyptic overtones makes the claims sound as silly as they actually are, don't they?

 

[Hokulele]

But you won't. Speaking without dripping gravitas and apocalyptic overtones makes the claims sound as silly as they actually are, don't they?

Er, GreNME, you may want to check your quote tags. The last two comments were from regan, not default.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Sorry to others that weren't there, but I had to share it in the context of this thread since this is where it began.

Just for laughs:

I just don't see this type of action fit for someone who is a moderator, and I should have demoted you with that silly GreNME stuff you started instead of teasing you with a 24 hour ban.

You're always going off without ever reading the works first - such as your attitude with Acharya's companion to Zeitgeist..(or any of her books that you haven't read, which is all of them). That is an attitude I just can't tolerate. If you want to read things and give critical, point by point feedback, that's fine. But you're always going off on these rants about **** you haven't bothered to read yourself.

And don't think I didn't see your comments about you refusing to even read Acharya's stuff... And how you expect it for free if you are going to read it at all, and how you'd pass it to him and others for free if you did have it.

That's just improper behavior. I could understand it if you had actually read the works you refuse to read, but it's a cyclical argument with you that never moves forward, simply because you don't want to read the works.

I read the Book of the Dead last week, and anyone who can't see the overlap in the stories is a fricking moron. You should read the intro to The Other Bible, the editor has a whole discussion about this sort of thing - and about people like GreNME who don't get it because they don't understand the context of the work. Not to mention, but throughout Budge's version, he cites numerous other translations in full, giving other people's interpretations of the work. He also includes all of the original hieroglyphs for all of his interpretations. Yet GreNME doesn't know this obvious ******** - when he's attacking it. And I saw that stupid site he put up, what a joke. When he actually starts reading this stuff, he'll debunk himself. 30 minutes searching academic journals will debunk him... not to mention that my citation to Epiphaneus was verified by two scholars, including Anna Partington, the same one your friend dismissed without even verifying it. It was found in several newer translations of Epiphanius that were based on the older MS - indeed, the discussion of the solstice celebrations AND the names and descriptions of the rituals was all there.

the context:
I have lost my moderator status because I moved a thread to a pseudoscience section. That thread was about giving LSD to children or some such nonsense, and it being a cure for schizophrenia...

I know, it's totally unrelated, but if anyone is really in need of a good read, go check out this thread:
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/communion/viewtopic.php?t=3466

This is where GreNME sticks it to the man over zeitgeist...and then gets banned for it...