ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[thesyntaxera]

HISTORY OF JUDAISM
http://sendofile.com/get/1540053452-5-Judaism.doc.

In any event, it is clear that the Hebrews were an ancient Caucasian-Semitic people who gradually spread throughout the ‘Fertile Crescent’ of the Tigris-Euphrates River valley. Their origins go back at least to the 2nd or 3rd millennium B.C., and perhaps much earlier. They were a nomadic people who wandered as they shepherded their flocks of goats and sheep up and down the valleys. Some of their people also lived in the more urban centers from Ur to Nineveh, where they engaged in trade and set up centers for learning.


Throughout their history, the Hebrews lived in a number of different lands, often for many centuries at a time. Inevitably much of their host's culture would then become part of their own. As a result, there are many similarities between Near Eastern cultures and Hebrew traditions and beliefs such as Mesopotamian law codes, Egyptian wisdom literature, and Canaanite poetry. In addition, the Hebrews inherited some of their myths from the Neolithic ‘Great Goddess’ religions of the Near East such as the Arkites* [Gk. 'ark' means protection], an ancient Canaanite people who worshipped the moon-goddess Astarte or Ishtar. They also adopted many of the beliefs of the Zoroastrians during their exile in Babylon (597-539 B.C.). [see: Gilgamesh, Zoroastrian]

 

[GreNME]

What is the objection again? All this snippet indicates is that it originated in mesopotamia and that the egyptians had a hand in it's development...if you read the article closely this discrepancy would have been made clear.

No, the article claimed right off the bat that the Egyptians played a hand at the beginning. This is false, because no real integration even occurred until the Hyksos dynasties-- I can't believe you haven't made one mention of them yet-- and even then the integration occurred in Egypt, not in Mesopotamia or the Indus River Valley. Basically, Egyptian mythology got a little infusion from semitic and indus river mythologies, not the other way around.

No one claimed egyptian origin for astrology...

Zeitgeist did.

if you were reading these instead of glancing over them for rebuttal points it would be apparent to you. Interestingly (and predictably), though, your own link does go far enough to contradict your attempts to link the different mythologies from separate civilizations in the course of its "explanation" by pointing out:

"The various personalities and domains of these gods changed with time and change of rulership."

Whoops. Guess you missed that in your earnest.

I love how you can take what has been stated to you and turn it around as if you were the one who drew this conclusion in this debate.

I love how you've gone from defending similarities to defending differences, so ain't we both content.

You see, I've been going on and on from the start that the worst aspect of trying to attribute Egyptian myth to Christianity or Judaism is that Egyptian myth has changed so much over the centuries and millenia that there is no single point and time during any of that where corresponding as well as correlating similarities existed in a manner that could have converted over to them. I still make this assertion.

It's not a straight line, as we have already, and repeatedly stated..it's an evolution of various idea's melding together and taking on a life of their own.

That is a fantasy. I have pointed out repeatedly the fact that claims of the sort you are making have been thoroughly disputed to the point of being ignored in any reputable historical and cultural academic study. Just because you refuse to accept this does not make it any less factual. Your about.com link even agrees with me on this. Why can't you?

What were my original assertions?

Well, your first assertion was that the Southern Cross claim was true, which I have shown to be false (because the constellations and zodiac don't line up). You then went on to defend the 'basic idea' (paraphrased) of the claims made in the film, and you continually have been providing links that ostensibly seem to be indicating you are asserting that the film's claims of Egyptian roots in Christian and Jewish theology are true.

Did I assert anything except the general idea that the cultures in the region in question might have interacted enough to influence the ultimate outcome of religion?

You certainly seem to have with your links. You certainly seem to be stuck on Horus as the rebirth symbol. You continue to post links that make other assertions, though I will agree you haven't bothered to take much time putting any of it in your own words.

[*] http://lds-blahblahblahblahblahblah...bl ahblahou might find it interesting. [/LIST

Whatever man, you don't even read them anyway.

You know, attacking me personally doesn't do you any good. If you like, I would be happy to share with you the bookmarks I have compiled in all of my browsers, to show you just how much I have read of online sources. However, I have read more in books, which I've also referenced for you. Also granted, I haven't read all of those books I linked you to, but I've read enough of them to trust the authorship of the others associated, and there are about half a dozen I have read that don't appear in that list.

But my reading credentials don't seem to matter to you. You're only questioning my credibility because I believe you have no desire to actually look at any of the source materials from which almost every opinion on the subject I have made so far originates. Which is ironic, because...

This is useless. You are unable to see the other side of the argument because you blinded by your rightness. I take what you say seriously, and then argue because I happen to know for a fact that modern civilization wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for what happened before...haven't you ever taken an introdcutory sociology course?

You know, if you are basing your beliefs on a 101-level sociology course, then you have far more academic issues than can be addressed within the scope of the conversation we are having. SOC101 does not even get into the kinds of factors that come into play with the subject matter we are discussing. Now, when you get into the 200 and 300 level courses, there are some applicable soft sciences that are covered.

You're saying that I'm "blinded" by my "rightness" as your reasoning for why I won't accept your premise. However, I've given you several scholarly papers linked online and a list of several books that not only lay out what I've been saying but point out their academic sources in their appendices. I'm not "blinded" by anything, I have simply studied enough to know which ideas have merit and which have been relegated to the realm of fringe (and discredited) 'science'. Your saying I am "blinded" by such is like arguing that I am "blinded" for not accepting a flat-Earth claim as valid and worth consideration.

Wow. So, you're basically telling me to "step back" from all of those troublesome details like the factual historical data, cultural contexts and obstacles for transmission of ideas (like geography or language)... you know, all of those pesky things that clearly point out just how wrong you are with your broad over-generalizations and assertion of significance to unrelated criteria?

What I am telling you is to quit asserting that there is no way that any of these civilizations in question would have affected each others cultural religious development. BECAUSE THEY DID! Did we all just hatch from eggs on this planet in our present locations or did we gradually migrate around the world taking bit's and pieces of various cultures with us?

Nice tautology you have built for yourself there. You claim I should stop saying there is no way that what you've asserted (through links and not using your own words) has happened because "THEY DID!" It reminds me of the argument that God is all-powerful because the Bible says he is, so it must be so.

Care to dig yourself out of that tautological hole?

That funny, I haven't made any actual assertions about the course of religious evolution I have just stated that it evolved, and that there are correlations in the cultures that support the theory that as human civilzation evolved and interacted so did religious beliefs.

Correlations do not imply causation. I don't know why I have to keep pointing out this simple scientific concept. Correlations do not imply causation. This should not be difficult to understand. I have explained to you, both in my own words and through web links and a link to a list of books that will describe this concept for you in words that are not my own. Correlation does not imply causation.

Astrology played a heavy role in the the development of mythos. These mythos have been absorbed and transformed variously throughout many cultures...as has been stated....as is supported by an credible historian.

No, astronomy has played a heavy role, often in the development of separate astrologies that have, over the period of thousands of years (and after Christianity began), converging into what we understand is astrology today.

Again what was my exact assertion? I brought up specific examples for the purpose of providing an example...period.

Since you have only seldomly put anything into your own words, there isn't much to directly quote you on. So, if you would be so kind, why don't you lay out, in as descriptive of terms as possible and not by cutting and pasting Wikipedia, About.com, or astrology websites, exactly what you would like to assert and the reasons why you assert them. Up to now, very little of what you have been asserting has been your own words, and every time I call you on them you fall back to cutting and pasting. So let's go ahead and start fresh with what you wish to assert

You accuse me of ignorance while recycling the basic premise of my argument back to me...thats reeeeal amusing let me tell you.

Your original "basic premise" was the claim that the Southern Cross constellation claim in the movie was valid. I pretty thoroughly showed that it has no basis in astrology, ancient astronomy, or historic validity within any scope of the discussion in this thread (meaning it was not, in fact, an influence on the Christ myth).

The rest of your arguing has been that I am wrong, links to Wikipedia, about.com, and astrology websites with cut-n-pasted claims that ostensibly seem to argue against what I've been saying (that the Zeitgeist film and its claims are bunk), and that I should "step back" and take a less detailed, less contexualized view of archaeological and cultural religious history.

Let me know when you have formed a cogent argument that places your assertations of where I am wrong in your own words, not cut-n-pasted from various websites, and then we can begin examining the finer points without you being so upset and making personal accusations about me as a defense when I place accepted academic sources in front of you.

[url]http://atheism.about.com/b/a/123861.htm

Ancient Egypt and Judaism

What is the relationship between Egyptian religion and ancient Judaism? There was a time when the links were being explored by scholars, with many thinking that Egypt was at one point a strong influence on the Hebrews. Today the connections are generally ignored - but that may change.

Do you understand why these things are, as quoted in the article you linked to, generally ignored today? Because the assumed influences are tenuous at best, the discoveries of the Nag Hammâdi blew some of the assumptions right out of the water, and further study has shown on numerous occassions that the authors and 'researchers' who made such conclusions were working backwards from faulty assumptions.

In other words: as we've gotten a better understanding of the history and cultures in question, the assumptions of the kind I have been arguing against have been shown to be incorrect.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I love how you've gone from defending similarities to defending differences, so ain't we both content.

I glad you dig, it could have something to do with that fact that we are kind of saying the same thing.

You see, I've been going on and on from the start that the worst aspect of trying to attribute Egyptian myth to Christianity or Judaism is that Egyptian myth has changed so much over the centuries and millenia that there is no single point and time during any of that where corresponding as well as correlating similarities existed in a manner that could have converted over to them. I still make this assertion

Assert away...all I have been talking about is that it is unlikely that coexistant cultures would not have shared idea's, something that you at times appear to agree with, and at other times so wholly opposed to.

That is a fantasy. I have pointed out repeatedly the fact that claims of the sort you are making have been thoroughly disputed to the point of being ignored in any reputable historical and cultural academic study. Just because you refuse to accept this does not make it any less factual. Your about.com link even agrees with me on this. Why can't you?

I have never claimed anything as fact, other than the idea that cultures share idea's.

Well, your first assertion was that the Southern Cross claim was true

I never claimed it was true, I suggested the possiblity that there could be truth to it.

You know, attacking me personally doesn't do you any good. If you like, I would be happy to share with you the bookmarks I have compiled in all of my browsers, to show you just how much I have read of online sources. However, I have read more in books, which I've also referenced for you. Also granted, I haven't read all of those books I linked you to, but I've read enough of them to trust the authorship of the others associated, and there are about half a dozen I have read that don't appear in that list.

Who's attacking you?

But my reading credentials don't seem to matter to you.

Mainly because you contradict yourself with statements that suggest what I have been saying(that cultures share idea's) with statements that suggest that there is no way they could have.

SOC101 does not even get into the kinds of factors that come into play with the subject matter we are discussing.

It has much to do with since we are talking about developing societies. My reference to it was that my basic premise relates to what is accepted as general knowledge in an entry level sociology course.

Nice tautology you have built for yourself there. You claim I should stop saying there is no way that what you've asserted (through links and not using your own words) has happened because "THEY DID!" It reminds me of the argument that God is all-powerful because the Bible says he is, so it must be so.

I only asserted cultures shared idea's which THEY DID.

Correlations do not imply causation. I don't know why I have to keep pointing out this simple scientific concept. Correlations do not imply causation. This should not be difficult to understand. I have explained to you, both in my own words and through web links and a link to a list of books that will describe this concept for you in words that are not my own. Correlation does not imply causation.

I don't know why you don't keep reading the sentence that I respond with. Causation occured already, everything else is evolution.

No, astronomy has played a heavy role, often in the development of separate astrologies that have, over the period of thousands of years (and after Christianity began), converging into what we understand is astrology today.

Isn't that what I have been implying or are you not reading?

Since you have only seldomly put anything into your own words, there isn't much to directly quote you on. So, if you would be so kind, why don't you lay out, in as descriptive of terms as possible and not by cutting and pasting Wikipedia, About.com, or astrology websites, exactly what you would like to assert and the reasons why you assert them. Up to now, very little of what you have been asserting has been your own words, and every time I call you on them you fall back to cutting and pasting. So let's go ahead and start fresh with what you wish to assert

I already have several times.

Your original "basic premise" was the claim that the Southern Cross constellation claim in the movie was valid. I pretty thoroughly showed that it has no basis in astrology, ancient astronomy, or historic validity within any scope of the discussion in this thread (meaning it was not, in fact, an influence on the Christ myth).

I never claimed that as my premise...remember where I restated my thesis several pages back...a post you must have overlooked?

The rest of your arguing has been that I am wrong, links to Wikipedia, about.com, and astrology websites with cut-n-pasted claims that ostensibly seem to argue against what I've been saying (that the Zeitgeist film and its claims are bunk), and that I should "step back" and take a less detailed, less contexualized view of archaeological and cultural religious history.

In order to understand the basic premise of what I am saying you do need to step back a minute.

In other words: as we've gotten a better understanding of the history and cultures in question, the assumptions of the kind I have been arguing against have been shown to be incorrect.

what assumption...the assumption that cultures interact and share idea's?

 

[thesyntaxera]

So.. ...do they interact and share idea's over thousands of years or don't they?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Thesyntaxera, Zeitgeist makes a number of claims about the origins of Christianity that are palpably absurd. GreNME, though under no obligation to do so, went out of his way to show you precisely how absurd those claims really are. You have now gone from defending those specific claims to, having fallen short in that department, seeking refuge in equivocation and captious whining about irrelevant content in whatever articles you googled up at a moment's notice. This is intellectually dishonest. Your "thesis" that cultures interact and share ideas (wow, that's deep!) was constructed purely as a platform from which to whack at a strawman. The claims in Zeitgeist are very specific and unambiguously stated. Almost all of them lack any historical justification whatsoever and saying "cultures share stuff" simply won't do. Sorry, no dice.

Just stop. Your performance in this thread has been embarrassing, to say the least. Zeitgeist is a very silly, anti-intellectual movie, made by ignoramuses for ignoramuses. I defy you to find a single qualified scholar (Biblical or ANE studies) to vouch for any of the nonsense it claims are facts.

 

[Hokulele]

Just stop. Your performance in this thread has been embarrassing, to say the least.

You should see his performance over in Religion & Philosophy over this same topic.

 

[Slayhamlet]

You should see his performance over in Religion & Philosophy over this same topic.

Do I want to, though? Is it more amusing than it is disheartening?

 

[Hokulele]

Do I want to, though? Is it more amusing than it is disheartening?

No, you really don't. It is very disheartening, although there was a brief moment of comedy when HereticHulk posted in support of TSE claiming that Jesus Christ translates to "annointed with semen". Nobody, including TSE, seemed to want to touch that one.

 

[Slayhamlet]

No, you really don't. It is very disheartening, although there was a brief moment of comedy when HereticHulk posted in support of TSE claiming that Jesus Christ translates to "annointed with semen". Nobody, including TSE, seemed to want to touch that one.

Haha, that sounds way too amusing to not check out!

I will now foolishly disregard your advice. (crosses fingers)

 

[allibearbear]

In Western Qabalah, Osiris is the Son, Horus the Father, Isis the Mother. They are often assigned around the edges of the 345 triangle thus... Horus 3, Isis 4, Osiris 5.

Thus, in this system, Osiris is the symbolic progeny of the other two. In some ways it could be said that Osiris is Horus risen.

Thus, I'd say, Jesus is nearer to Osiris rather than Horus. BUT...it's believed that Christ, Khiram (Abif), Krishna, and Horus are all from the same semantic root (Kh) and represent essentially the same principle.


Thus, one might say Jesus Christ represents an amalgam of Horus-Osiris.

This is reinforced when one considers that Jesus + Christ, in Greek numerology (isosephia) is 888 + 1480, which by ratio reduces to 3:5, implying Father - Son.


To drag Moses in a bit (!), his Hebrew numberology is 345 (mem, shin, heh).

Nick

ps - This, I'd say, is fairly mainstream Western Qabalah (Western Mysteries Tradition, WMT). To move further away from the core, into the less explored and more contentious realms of Greek biblical numerology, one might note Rev 1:1 "This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ" is "Apocalysis Iesou Christos" which equals 1512 + 888 + 1480 = 3880. Helios, the Sun, equals 388. Some writers have it that multiplying numbers by 10 in the Greek New Testament implies a "risen" aspect. Thus, "this is the revelation of Jesus Christ" equals "this is the risen Sun/Son."

I noticed GreNME responded to every word written by thesyntaxera, but neglected Nick's post. Why??

However, people often misuse the statement "straw man argument" as a catch-all to refute an opponent in a debate.
Why does this sound eerily familiar?

BTW, the Randi moderators seem to favor the "I'm intellectually superior to you" crowd. Slayhamlet just called TSE's attempt embarrassing, dishonest and summarily dismissed him as an ignoramus. NICE.

GreNME,
I do appreciate your effort to share what you know and will continue to look into your paper, as the religious segment of Zeitgeist fascinates this ignoramus

 

[Gravy]

Hello, allibearbear. Welcome to the forums.

I noticed GreNME responded to every word written by thesyntaxera, but neglected Nick's post. Why??

Of course I don't speak for GreNME, but if it were me I'd say that argument by speculating about Bible code is unworthy of a response.

BTW, the Randi moderators seem to favor the "I'm intellectually superior to you" crowd. Slayhamlet just called TSE's attempt embarrassing, dishonest and summarily dismissed him as an ignoramus. NICE.

No kidding? Where can I find that post?

By the way, if you believe a post has violated forum rules, you can report it to the moderators by clicking the warning triangle that appears a the bottom left of every post.

 

[Calcas]

This whole thread is TL;DR. (I just learned that today, "too long, didn't read"...)

But, I keep seeing it at or near the top of the forum.

Can someone PLEASE provide a cliff notes summary in a paragraph or two?

Dunka.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I noticed GreNME responded to every word written by thesyntaxera, but neglected Nick's post. Why??

I can tell you right now it's mostly nonsense. Christ, Krishna, Hiram and Horus do not all share a semantic root. The roots of Christ and Krishna are not even in the same language family as Hiram and Horus. Krishna literally means "dark-colored" in Sanskrit, and Χριστός literally means "covered in oil" in Ancient Greek. Those two names are not believed to have a common Indo-European root by any linguistic scholars I have heard of. I'm not certain about Hiram and Horus (having never studied any Afro-Asiatic languages), but since Nick didn't cite any sources (reputable or otherwise) I wouldn't take his word on it. And as for the numerology bit, well, it's numerology.

However, people often misuse the statement "straw man argument" as a catch-all to refute an opponent in a debate.
Why does this sound eerily familiar?

Are you claiming I misused the word strawman in my post? If you think so, please explain how.

BTW, the Randi moderators seem to favor the "I'm intellectually superior to you" crowd. Slayhamlet just called TSE's attempt embarrassing, dishonest and summarily dismissed him as an ignoramus. NICE.

He is arguing from ignorance, whereas GreNME is arguing from historical evidence. What is he if not an ignoramus on this subject? He simply doesn't know what he's talking about. And if you're going to baselessly carp about the moderators, at least take it to Forum Management.

GreNME,
I do appreciate your effort to share what you know and will continue to look into your paper, as the religious segment of Zeitgeist fascinates this ignoramus

Do you? Thesyntaxera certainly doesn't.

 

[allibearbear]

Thesyntaxera, Zeitgeist makes a number of claims about the origins of Christianity that are palpably absurd. GreNME, though under no obligation to do so, went out of his way to show you precisely how absurd those claims really are. You have now gone from defending those specific claims to, having fallen short in that department, seeking refuge in equivocation and captious whining about irrelevant content in whatever articles you googled up at a moment's notice. This is intellectually dishonest. Your "thesis" that cultures interact and share ideas (wow, that's deep!) was constructed purely as a platform from which to whack at a strawman. The claims in Zeitgeist are very specific and unambiguously stated. Almost all of them lack any historical justification whatsoever and saying "cultures share stuff" simply won't do. Sorry, no dice.

Just stop. Your performance in this thread has been embarrassing, to say the least. Zeitgeist is a very silly, anti-intellectual movie, made by ignoramuses for ignoramuses. I defy you to find a single qualified scholar (Biblical or ANE studies) to vouch for any of the nonsense it claims are facts.

Thanks for the directions to the tattle-tale button, Gravy, but that isn't my steelo. ". . .unworthy of a response." Indeed. The exact highbrow, elitist dung to which I was referring. Pee-yew!

 

[dudalb]

Thanks for the directions to the tattle-tale button, Gravy, but that isn't my steelo. ". . .unworthy of a response." Indeed. The exact highbrow, elitist dung to which I was referring. Pee-yew!

So expecting people to produce actual evidence to back up their arguments is highbrow ,elitist,dung????

 

[Slayhamlet]

Thanks for the directions to the tattle-tale button, Gravy, but that isn't my steelo. ". . .unworthy of a response." Indeed. The exact highbrow, elitist dung to which I was referring. Pee-yew!

Sorry that the work of serious historians doesn't conform to your fantasies.

 

[allibearbear]

Has it occurred to any of you, besides GreNMe, that your receiving a lot of plebeian foot traffic as a result of Zeitgeist and that you might embrace their new-found interest, instead of belittling their, grr, my husband and his friend are talking about the color variance of nipples, anyway, did I get to my point?
Yes, you do seem to take yourself very seriously, slay. My fantasy includes a few more guys and girls than one, lone, recurring mystery man here to save the world.

 

[Gravy]

Thanks for the directions to the tattle-tale button, Gravy, but that isn't my steelo.

If you're unwilling to bring forum moderation complaints to the attention of the moderators, then don't complain about them. Fair enough?

I asked you for the link to the post about TSE. Is TSE thesyntaxera?

". . .unworthy of a response." Indeed. The exact highbrow, elitist dung to which I was referring. Pee-yew!

If you're prepared to defend the relevance of the Qabalah belief that every single letter and symbol in the Tanakh has a secret meaning that can be teased out by numerology, then go right ahead. I'm all ears, and am quite prepared to respond. If not, then retract your statement and apologize to me. Or do you claim that a double standard should apply to you?

What's it going to be, allibearbear?

 

[allibearbear]

Say what, Gravy?

You should ask Nick to engage in a Qabalah throw-down, not me. I'd love to hear it, see it, read it;sounds like captivating discourse. I should ever be so lucky to hold a conversation with you and not bore you to tears. I'll apologize anyways, since I like you; I'm sorry you're so smart.

 

[Drudgewire]

Has it occurred to any of you, besides GreNMe, that your receiving a lot of plebeian foot traffic as a result of Zeitgeist and that you might embrace their new-found interest, instead of belittling...

Even in the heaviest of my CT days I would have found Zeitgeist not worthy of anything beyond belittling.

This is an educational/skepticism board. The number of people being interested in something doesn't make it one iota less nonsensical without evidence to back it up, and "embracing it" without any is sort of what this forum exists to discourage.