Zeitgeist



Great film...  

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972&q=zeitgeist+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=152&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Would anybody like to watch the film and then comment?

Well that might be all fine and dandy... except...

Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable

The fact that I believe he is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for my sins is a matter of faith.

You are free to agree with me, or not.  

similarity is not identity.

Just because something has commonalities with something else doesn't mean it IS nothing more than that something else.

highlighting similarities and ignoring disimilarities can bring one to 'prove' almost anything.

Quoted: Well that might be all fine and dandy... except... Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable

I think this is only true to Christians. I, for one, have seen no information about him outside of the NT writings.

I think the story of Jsus is more similar to Buddha, though Mithras is also very similar. both pre-date Christianity by >800 years.

Quoted: Quoted: Well that might be all fine and dandy... except... Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable I think this is only true to Christians. I, for one, have seen no information about him outside of the NT writings. I think the story of Jsus is more similar to Buddha, though Mithras is also very similar. both pre-date Christianity by >800 years. www.drazin.com/chap2.phtml

Some would say Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Josephus all mention him.

The first 3 are mentions of Christ (or Chrestus) and are references to Christians and what they believe, not actual references to a historical Jesus.  For various reasons,  I don't put much weight in them.  

The mentions by Josephus are viewed as valid (although one is  viewed by historians as a partial forgery).  To me, these combined with the biblical evidence are enough to make it reasonable to assume there is an actual person behind the mythology surrounding Jesus.  

Much of the information in that movie would provide evidence that Jesus existed, but has been so mythologized that we don't have  much left of the historical Jesus and what we do have is almost impossible to separate from the mythology.

Its also important to look at the documentary   the OP referenced.   It is a 9/11 conspiracy film as well.   Archarya S (whose work the entire first part of the film is based on) is a conspiracy theorist as well.  She believes a conspiracy (involving the Masons hehe) led to the formation of the Christian religion as a method of control.  

That doesn't imply that all of her information is wrong, but it does mean a reasonable person has to look at the conclusions she draws very carefully.    I think she makes too many leaps of logic and her central thesis fails to convince me.

just something to think about

It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved.

Quoted: Quoted: Well that might be all fine and dandy... except... Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable I think this is only true to Christians. I, for one, have seen no information about him outside of the NT writings. I think the story of Jsus is more similar to Buddha, though Mithras is also very similar. both pre-date Christianity by >800 years. www.drazin.com/chap2.phtml

Extremely interesting that Jews would go to so much trouble to try to refute and destroy the entire basis for the Christian religion.

Quoted: Extremely interesting that Jews would go to so much trouble to try to refute and destroy the entire basis for the Christian religion.

to be fair, that site is a resource for anti-missionary work.  Its the answers they give when Christians try to twist the Jewish scripture to say Jesus was the messiah.

Hardly any sinister intent there.

Quoted: Quoted: to be fair, that site is a resource for anti-missionary work.  Its the answers they give when Christians try to twist the Jewish scripture to say Jesus was the messiah. Hardly any sinister intent there.

I've actually never been to the website, other than the page I linked to. I found it reading about Mithraism one day, and found the similarities b/w Jsus and Sidarthra interesting.

Quoted: Quoted: Extremely interesting that Jews would go to so much trouble to try to refute and destroy the entire basis for the Christian religion. to be fair, that site is a resource for anti-missionary work.  Its the answers they give when Christians try to twist the Jewish scripture to say Jesus was the messiah. Hardly any sinister intent there.

Well, the two pages that I read were a full blown "debunking" of Christianity.

I would also like to point out that much of this writing is down right comical. The section on Gentiles believing in "G-d-men" is the worst kind of contextual butchery and deliberate deception that I have seen in a religious thesis.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: to be fair, that site is a resource for anti-missionary work.  Its the answers they give when Christians try to twist the Jewish scripture to say Jesus was the messiah. Hardly any sinister intent there. I've actually never been to the website, other than the page I linked to. I found it reading about Mithraism one day, and found the similarities b/w Jsus and Sidarthra interesting.

Don't disregard the similarities between Moses and other ancient mythical figures (which predate Moses) that this film points out. The Jews may choose to disregard Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but the foundation of Christianity is in Judaism and if you take the mind of these debunkers then Judaism is hardly original either.

As for the similarities, it is not hard to understand in my mind, if you have faith and believe in spirituality. As the video points out, there are strong similarities between the life of Joseph and the life of Jesus. Christians believe that the life of Joseph was a prophecy of the life of Jesus. There have been imitations in the past, and according to The Bible there are more imitations to come, at least one anyways.

If you look carefully, the video contians some information that may not be 100% factual. That being what it may, I found most of the video to be quite well done, with an excellent level of accuracy. I even took the time to pause the video and scroll through the (otherwise fast moving) list of similarities between older myths and Christianity.



One thing in particular, towards the end of the video, the narrator states that "those who know the truth" use it to manipulate others. What a statement of truth if there ever was one.

As I have mentioned before, I am a doubting Christian. This video brings together years of research into a short production. In a way, I wish I had seen this first! Before I wasted all that time on church, and my study of why Christianity may be flawed.



Franklin

Quoted: Would anybody like to watch the film

ok.

and then comment?

yawn.

Would anybody like to read this response and then comment?

benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

I've read that response. In fact, it is every bit as flawed as the video, maybe even more so. The response goes on to make assumption after assumption. I do not disagree with much of the information in the response, just how it is presented.

Another interesting point, the response says "If one reads the OT carefully, you will notice that the sun and moon are seen as controlled by Yahweh", The video does not dispute this. In fact, the video says the "Sun of God". Implying the same thing, the SUN is controlled by God in ancient faiths. Ben goes on and on about the hebrew faith and how different it is. He totally fails to make the point using logical argument. The point could be made, but in a different manner.

I would like to see a response that is more carefully crafted.

Franklin

Quoted: As I have mentioned before, I am a doubting Christian. This video brings together years of research into a short production. In a way, I wish I had seen this first! Before I wasted all that time on church, and my study of why Christianity may be flawed. cujet

Cujet - That's great to hear you found the video helpful in your personal religious journey.  I was raised a Catholic and have been a Born Again Christian several times in my life.  Finally, almost into my 30s, I'm proud to say I've casted off my belief in the Judeo-Christian God/Religious system.  Zeitgeist was tremendously helpful.

Now I consider myself a Deist, like Thomas Paine and many of the other Founders.

I think America would be a lot better off if this country shed it's fundamentalism.  Hearing these folks talk about being prepared for when Jesus comes back and the End Times is very disappointing.  If they could only START doing things to CHANGE America for the positive, instead of waiting for a magic man to come down from the clouds and solve all our problems.

Regards and I hope this video helps others!

Quoted:  If they could only START doing things to CHANGE America for the positive, instead of waiting for a magic man to come down from the clouds and solve all our problems.

It seems that emulating a martyr and being proactive are mutually exclusive.

Quoted: Zeitgeist img212.imageshack.us/img212/3933/gl2yf8.jpg Great film...   video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972&q=zeitgeist+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=152&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 Would anybody like to watch the film and then comment?

Let's see...

That's also the one that claims you don't legally have to pay income tax, that the government did 9/11, and so on...

If you've got 2 known steaming piles of and come upon a 3rd pile of a brown & putrid substance....

It just might be more too, eh?

Or are there multiple films with that title?

Quoted: Quoted: As I have mentioned before, I am a doubting Christian. This video brings together years of research into a short production. In a way, I wish I had seen this first! Before I wasted all that time on church, and my study of why Christianity may be flawed. cujet Cujet - That's great to hear you found the video helpful in your personal religious journey.  I was raised a Catholic and have been a Born Again Christian several times in my life.  Finally, almost into my 30s, I'm proud to say I've casted off my belief in the Judeo-Christian God/Religious system.  Zeitgeist was tremendously helpful. Now I consider myself a Deist, like Thomas Paine and many of the other Founders. I think America would be a lot better off if this country shed it's fundamentalism.  Hearing these folks talk about being prepared for when Jesus comes back and the End Times is very disappointing.  If they could only START doing things to CHANGE America for the positive, instead of waiting for a magic man to come down from the clouds and solve all our problems. Regards and I hope this video helps others!

no you weren't.

Quoted: Quoted: Zeitgeist img212.imageshack.us/img212/3933/gl2yf8.jpg Great film...   video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972&q=zeitgeist+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=152&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 Would anybody like to watch the film and then comment? Let's see... That's also the one that claims you don't legally have to pay income tax, that the government did 9/11, and so on... If you've got 2 known steaming piles of and come upon a 3rd pile of a brown & putrid substance.... It just might be more too, eh? Or are there multiple films with that title?

So you are saying that you can't believe everything you read or watch on the internet?

You know, I have been agreeing with you entirely too much lately.

Quoted: It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved.

Well, as a Mormon I would recommend that you just continue in what you know to be true and not get too upset at all the bashing that goes on here.  

If it's a video that's on the internet about religion, then it's either completely accurate or has enough truth in it to at least arouse suspicion about the subject.

Right?

Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved. Well, as a Mormon I would recommend that you just continue in what you know to be true and not get too upset at all the bashing that goes on here.

Quoted: Quoted: Would anybody like to watch the film ok. and then comment? yawn. Would anybody like to read this response and then comment? benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

Excellent response, I find this to be the most telling statement from his response.

My word to the viewers of such a film in a Jesus haunted culture which is Biblically illiterate is the advice of my grandmother long ago--- "don't be so open minded that your brains fall out." Check everything carefully, especially outlandish historical claims, even if you can't do more than read Wikipedia entries. You will discover that Mr. Joseph is like that ancient emperor--- he may have thought he was wearing the latest fashion, and was intellectually well clothed in the robes of truth, but in fact, this imperialistic film maker has no clothes. His myths are easy to deconstruct.

The problem with what I see in Christendom these days is (generally speaking) that it is full of uneducated Christians. They don't study the bible, they read it but don't study it. They don't study early church history and the writings of the patristic fathers and the church doctors. Most can't even give a defense of their faith, it is a sad state that the church is in these days...

If you read these writings you can see many of the same heresy's that are brought up today were dealt with in the church beginnings and history records how they dealt with it.

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Quoted: If you look carefully, the video contians some information that may not be 100% factual. That being what it may, I found most of the video to be quite well done, with an excellent level of accuracy. I even took the time to pause the video and scroll through the (otherwise fast moving) list of similarities between older myths and Christianity. One thing in particular, towards the end of the video, the narrator states that "those who know the truth" use it to manipulate others. What a statement of truth if there ever was one. As I have mentioned before, I am a doubting Christian. This video brings together years of research into a short production. In a way, I wish I had seen this first! Before I wasted all that time on church, and my study of why Christianity may be flawed. cujet

Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church....

You state the video brings together years of research...


I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time...


Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers.

Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find...

Quoted: Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find...

Well, to some extent I have done so. Early church fathers did quote the very same text we consider the bible. That simply means that the text existed at that time. The early church fathers also could not decide who Jesus was. Was he the son of God? Was he actually a man? Was he actually God and not a man? Did he actually live at all?

These questions were resolved by the early church, but it was in no way certain.

Franklin

Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved. Well, as a Mormon I would recommend that you just continue in what you know to be true and not get too upset at all the bashing that goes on here.

I really wasn't referring to this board so much as in general western society. There are a lot of people trying to drive religion from view, especially Christianity and there are a lot of people trying to decisively disprove the major beliefs of Christianity. This video is one more attempt at that.

Quoted: It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved.

... while simultaneously embracing the political correctness that endorses the worship of Allah.

Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved. ... while simultaneously embracing the political correctness that endorses the worship of Allah.

Other then members of Islam (a tiny minority in the U.S.), can you give me one example of a person who is seeking to disprove Christianity and embraces Islam?

I'm trying to think of one board member who fits that description.   The closest would be the Christian who married a Muslim, but he doesn't fit the description Motown_Steve gave.

Quoted: Quoted: Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find... Well, to some extent I have done so. Early church fathers did quote the very same text we consider the bible. That simply means that the text existed at that time. The early church fathers also could not decide who Jesus was. Was he the son of God? Was he actually a man? Was he actually God and not a man? Did he actually live at all? These questions were resolved by the early church, but it was in no way certain. cujet

Cujet...please..the early church fathers did understand who Jesus is (not was) and spoke vehemently against the heresy's of their day..

Donatism
Monastism
Arianism (Jw's by todays standards)
Gnostics
Pelaginism
Manichaeism
Neo-Platonism

and on and on and on.....

They (the early church fathers may have disagreed on some issues) but they agreed on Who Christ is...

Read some more....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find... Well, to some extent I have done so. Early church fathers did quote the very same text we consider the bible. That simply means that the text existed at that time. The early church fathers also could not decide who Jesus was. Was he the son of God? Was he actually a man? Was he actually God and not a man? Did he actually live at all? These questions were resolved by the early church, but it was in no way certain. cujet Cujet...please..the early church fathers did understand who Jesus is (not was) and spoke vehemently against the heresy's of their day.. Donatism Monastism Arianism (Jw's by todays standards) Gnostics Pelaginism Manichaeism Neo-Platonism and on and on and on.....

What about plagiarism?

-k

Quoted: Cujet...please..the early church fathers did understand who Jesus is (not was) and spoke vehemently against the heresy's of their day.. Donatism Monastism Arianism (Jw's by todays standards) Gnostics Pelaginism Manichaeism Neo-Platonism and on and on and on..... They (the early church fathers may have disagreed on some issues) but they agreed on Who Christ is... Read some more....

OK, I will do so, as I find it very interesting.

Still, the facts remain. Early church members were aware of many of the very same claims in this movie. In fact,,,, who was it that said the devil made other faiths first that have striking similarities to Christianity?

What about Gilgamesh? Similar story, or not?

What about the book of the dead, similar or not?

I can read the apologist arguments forever. Many don't hold water under close inspection. Good arguments, yes. Capable of being proven under the microscope, no.



Franklin

Anyway, there is a page I was reading a few weeks ago after having watched this movie which rebuts a lot of the stuff in the first half, about Christianity.

Here is the link --

http://mitchblog.com/?p=6

I dont think Mitch would mind me posting his link and rebuttal as long as I give him the credit, but if its against the rules please delete them...

Take it away Mitch...................



Straight from the mind of Mitch.

Zeitgeist Movie

I was directed by a friend to watch a film, mainly due to it’s discussion of a conspiracy behind 9/11. Some of you may have heard of, or already seen it before it is called Zeitgeist and located at http://zeitgeistmovie.com/. I invite you to watch the film for yourselves, of course, but I still want to present my findings.

Tied into the notion of ignorance by the author, religion (specifically Judeo-Christianity) is discussed in Part I. As I said before I invite you to watch it for yourself first, but here are my findings;

1. Horus was the SKY GOD in Egyptian mythology, NOT the SUN GOD. Ra was the sun god. Horus means “Falcon”. Eventually, yes, Horus did become associated with the Sun through his eyes. One eye was the sun, the other the moon - so he was not conquered by Set at night.
2. None of those were born of a virgin birth:

1. Horus was the son of Osiris (a male god of the underworld) and Isis (a female god). As time progresses we see that the Hellenic Greeks got Horus confused with Osiris, which would make Horus his own father… still not a virgin birth, as there was a father - himself, according to Greeks.

2. Attis was the son of Cybele… well he sort of had a virgin birth - His mother was impregnated by a tree that was inseminated by a creature called Agdistis who was the son of the mountain which was inseminated by Zeus.

3. Krishna was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva, born on July 19th 3228 BC

4. Dionysus’ mother was a mortal Semele and his father was the god Zeus. Zeus had intercourse with his mother - so sorry, not a virgin.

5. Mithra was born from a rock. Do rocks count as virgins?

6. In fact, most ‘virgin births’ in mythology were things like “coming from the semen of poseidon and the sea” or “coming from Zeus’ head” or a rock, like Mithra!

3. It should be noted that the Romans invented Crucifixion, it did not exist prior the later half of the first millennium BC

4. Historically speaking, Mithraism was actually influenced by Christianity - though it can be traced to 2000 years before Christ, we do not start seeing parallels to Christianity until the second century AD, 200 years after the birth of Christianity, and 120 years after the last New Testament document was written.

5. Though traditionally Jesus is said to have been born on Dec. 25th, it is actually believed he was born in August. It is well known facts that Christians celebrated His birth on Dec. 25th to purposely compete with the Pagan faiths.
6. As for them all being dead for 3 days and resurrecting - I’ve found no evidence of this from a reliable source.

7. The “Three Kings” in Orion’s Belt did not appear until the Middle Ages, long after the appearance of Christianity - Scientists have yet to confirm what the Magi saw that brought them to Bethlehem, all we know is that there was Zoroastrian prophecy saying that a ’star’ would appear in the ‘West’ and lead them to the King of Israel, and savior of mankind.

8. Notice, the documentary claims that a star in the ‘East’ - Sirius - aligns with Orion’s belt and becomes brighter…

The Three Wise Men or Kings specifically came from the East, traveling WEST to Bethlehem. Why would they follow an eastern star to go west if they’re coming from the East? Furthermore, Jesus was born in the West of the three kings and not the East.

9. The “M” argument is just plain stupid! What are the Greeks and Chinese/Indians doing using Latin glyphs and Roman mythology and astrology? (many Greek myths were modified by the Romans)

10. The solstice bit shows a misunderstanding of the sun’s movement. The Solstice does not always occur on the 21st, it can occur between the 21st and 23rd. The sun does not just sit idly by for 3 days, waiting for us to make legends about it. It will appear to rise the following day.

11. The astrology account is not very reliable. According to most astrologists, the age of Pisces began 200 years before Christ, and ended in the year 2000. It’s still rather confusing, and I don’t think they know what age we’re in now, but most sources agree that Pisces started hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. So sorry, close but no cigar.

12. It should also be noted that Hebrew culture did not embrace the Zodiac, and that Moses never used a ram’s horn – that was mentioned once in the Old testament to signify the coming of the Egyptians. It should be noted that the Gregorian calendar (which our modern day one is largely based on) and Jewish calendar do not follow the Zodiac in anyway shape and or form, and that the Zodiac is not a Jewish symbol, and to Christians, has always been regarded as pagan.

13. The Symbols of Jesus coming from the Zodiac, while an impressive find, are not really based off the Zodiac. He uses one Zodiac illustration throughout the documentary; it should be noted that not all, in fact, most did not have the axis. The circular symbol around the center of the cross is a simplification of statues which show a halo/crown of thorns around Christ.

14. I’ve tried looking up this “Nemo” from Babylon – I’ve found no mention outside of a very bias archaeological report (by Murdock). In fact, Manou is the only one I’ve found, and he was an Indian law god around 1000 BC, 1000 years after Moses. Minos was king of Crete, who supposedly got laws from Zeus to impose on his subjects every 9 years. As for Mises… once again, nothing.

In fact, the only mention of ‘nemo’ in a lawgiver sense outside of sources based off of this documentary is in the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Book of John, chapter 7, verse 19:
“Nonne Moses dedit vobis legem et nemo ex vobis facit legem”
Translates:
Did not Moses give you the Law, and [yet] none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?
- “Nemo” translates to “none”. This is the only mention of Nemo coming close to a lawgiver outside of the research in Zeitgeist.

In Zeitgeist, the narrator claims that there is no historical proof for Christ, and gives 40 historians who he says do not mention Christ.
- Josephus does mention Jesus Christ.
- So does Pliny the Younger and
- Tacitus, if I recall correctly.
- Tiberius does too.

His claim of Christ being the sun god of Gnostics is rather an idiotic claim;

- The Gnostics believed Christ similarly to the same way Christians do now – except they believe he was a man, had babies, etc, and came after the first book of the New Testament was believed to have been written.

Not only that, but he claims that the Romans used Christianity for control – this is not so, they had been persecuting Christians for 300 years.

- In fact, Constantine used the Edict of Milan as a method of control – not Christianity.

- He was not interested in uniting the Empire under one faith, but ending the blood shed – which he did by legalizing ALL religions, not just Christianity.

- And the narrator also forgets that the Vatican contributed vastly to the Renascence, perhaps more so than they did the Dark Ages,

- and that the Christian Greeks of the Byzantine Empire were the most technologically advanced people of all time until the 1700’s.

He points out the similarities of Jesus and Joseph, and yet, fails to realize that everything recorded in the New Testament is recorded to show Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

He also does not name the differences between Jesus and Joseph – Joseph was not born of a virgin birth, but of a mother in old age - is one example

Overall, Part I of this movie is VERY interesting, but not very factual. I find it ironic that he accuses relgion of taking advantadge of using the common person for their own underlying purpose (in his case, world domination), when thanks to this video, atheism would fit more into that description. This movie is such that any person uneducated about Judeo-Christian faith would simply fall into believing this series of fallacious premises. Is the author not doing the same thing he accuses organized religion of doing? I’m all for criticism of religion, even my own. However, criticism such as this is unfounded and simply idiotic.

I thought this was a particularly well done rebuttal cujet

Quoted: Now I consider myself a Deist, like Thomas Paine and many of the other Founders.

Historical research by Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas has determined that of the fifty-five men who crafted the Constitution, fifty were committed Christians, possibly fifty two.

He also determined that of the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence, fifty were definitely Christians, possibly fifty two.

In 1776, 99.8% of the people in America claimed to be Christians.

The book the Founding Fathers cite most in their writings and speeches is the Bible.

In the Trinity Decision of 1892, the Supreme Court examined thousands of documents from the founding of the nation- every state constitution, every compact leading up to 1776, all of the various decisions of the courts. They finally ruled that America was a Christian nation.

Samuel Adams, "the Father of the American Revolution", commenting on where citizens can learn of their rights - " These rights may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New  Testament."

Patrick Henry, famous for declaring " Give me liberty, or give me death!", commenting on the influence of Christianity on the founding of this nation - " It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

Also of note, the published battle cry of the American Revolution was "No King but King Jesus"

* - this post not endorsed by the NEA or the ACLU

Quoted: Quoted: Now I consider myself a Deist, like Thomas Paine and many of the other Founders. Historical research by Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas has determined that of the fifty-five men who crafted the Constitution, fifty were committed Christians, possibly fifty two. He also determined that of the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence, fifty were definitely Christians, possibly fifty two. In 1776, 99.8% of the people in America claimed to be Christians. The book the Founding Fathers cite most in their writings and speeches is the Bible. In the Trinity Decision of 1892, the Supreme Court examined thousands of documents from the founding of the nation- every state constitution, every compact leading up to 1776, all of the various decisions of the courts. They finally ruled that America was a Christian nation. Samuel Adams, "the Father of the American Revolution", commenting on where citizens can learn of their rights - " These rights may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New  Testament." Patrick Henry, famous for declaring " Give me liberty, or give me death!", commenting on the influence of Christianity on the founding of this nation - " It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" Also of note, the published battle cry of the American Revolution was "No King but King Jesus" * - this post not endorsed by the NEA or the ACLU

All of the point mentioned above CAN be verified by secular historians.....


Good post...

Quoted: Quoted: Now I consider myself a Deist, like Thomas Paine and many of the other Founders. Historical research by Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas has determined that of the fifty-five men who crafted the Constitution, fifty were committed Christians, possibly fifty two. He also determined that of the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence, fifty were definitely Christians, possibly fifty two. In 1776, 99.8% of the people in America claimed to be Christians. The book the Founding Fathers cite most in their writings and speeches is the Bible. In the Trinity Decision of 1892, the Supreme Court examined thousands of documents from the founding of the nation- every state constitution, every compact leading up to 1776, all of the various decisions of the courts. They finally ruled that America was a Christian nation. Samuel Adams, "the Father of the American Revolution", commenting on where citizens can learn of their rights - " These rights may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New  Testament." Patrick Henry, famous for declaring " Give me liberty, or give me death!", commenting on the influence of Christianity on the founding of this nation - " It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" Also of note, the published battle cry of the American Revolution was "No King but King Jesus" * - this post not endorsed by the NEA or the ACLU

Noooooo.  They were all diests because, er...um....well....it fits better with what I want to believe.

Quoted: Well that might be all fine and dandy... except... Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable The fact that I believe he is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for my sins is a matter of faith. You are free to agree with me, or not.

Actually it is disputable but not disprovable.  The Romans kept record of about everything they ever did, especially their legal proceedings.  Seems that they can't find any paperwork regarding any jesus person or that he was crucified after a trial.  There are lots of writings aobut a jesus but it's always third party stories about someone they heard about.  No witness acounts other then the bible, which is a flawed account due to not having been written at the time of the events and that it appears more allagorical then historical.  

Then you have many prophets walking around at the same time telling the same story claiming they are the true prophet.  Prophets were standing on street corners back then and were quite numerous.  Why your prophet became popular probably had more to do with showmanship then being a lone point of light.  

That fact that so many other things in the bible can be disproved only gives more circumstantial evidence that the rest of the book is just a work of fiction, including the existence of jesus and certainly his divinity.  

At best a person named jesus may have existed and he may have been quite motivational and created a following amoung the jewish people.  His miracles and his divine origin can only be said to be sensational showmanship.  I can't prove they didn't happen for the same reason I can't prove there isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars.  It is so unprobably though that to entertain it is only at the hysterical.  

Karsh

Quoted: Quoted: If you look carefully, the video contians some information that may not be 100% factual. That being what it may, I found most of the video to be quite well done, with an excellent level of accuracy. I even took the time to pause the video and scroll through the (otherwise fast moving) list of similarities between older myths and Christianity. One thing in particular, towards the end of the video, the narrator states that "those who know the truth" use it to manipulate others. What a statement of truth if there ever was one. As I have mentioned before, I am a doubting Christian. This video brings together years of research into a short production. In a way, I wish I had seen this first! Before I wasted all that time on church, and my study of why Christianity may be flawed. cujet Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find...

Yeah, the early corruption, changing views, reinvention of itself, power grabbing and killing in the name of their god should scare the crap out of you.  You can't seperate man from the religion.  It is man that practices and defines the religion.  If there were no human participation in religion it would have been a two bit work of fiction that couldn't have gotten published.

Any spirtual teaching that requires blind faith, castigates those that question and has to reinvent itself everytime science or culture catches up to their hiding place is not something to be trusted.  

Not to mention "Never trust anything that has to tell you that you need trust it."

Karsh

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find... Well, to some extent I have done so. Early church fathers did quote the very same text we consider the bible. That simply means that the text existed at that time. The early church fathers also could not decide who Jesus was. Was he the son of God? Was he actually a man? Was he actually God and not a man? Did he actually live at all? These questions were resolved by the early church, but it was in no way certain. cujet Cujet...please..the early church fathers did understand who Jesus is (not was) and spoke vehemently against the heresy's of their day.. Donatism Monastism Arianism (Jw's by todays standards) Gnostics Pelaginism Manichaeism Neo-Platonism and on and on and on..... They (the early church fathers may have disagreed on some issues) but they agreed on Who Christ is... Read some more....

Go read about the Coucil lof Nycea (sp?).  Where they decided that what books were divine and what books weren't, where the idea of trinity was created, where Mary was cast out of the bible and portrayed as a whore.  Prior to this even the jewish believers didn't think jesus was a divinity.  They just figured he was an enlightened human.  When the church started to see it's control slip due to the numerous conflicting accoutns of jesus present in every local church they needed to centralize their power and control.  They decided what the bibel should contain and then outlawed any other gospels then what they approved.  This is why the Gnostic Gospels were hidden.  They tell a far different story of jesus then the bible does.  

Careful what you study.  If you study christain based research you will certain find that chiristianity is real and based on truth.  If you read historical research though you will find that nothing in the bible is as it was presented.  

Karsh

Quoted: Quoted: Now I consider myself a Deist, like Thomas Paine and many of the other Founders. Historical research by Dr. M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas has determined that of the fifty-five men who crafted the Constitution, fifty were committed Christians, possibly fifty two. He also determined that of the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence, fifty were definitely Christians, possibly fifty two. In 1776, 99.8% of the people in America claimed to be Christians. The book the Founding Fathers cite most in their writings and speeches is the Bible. In the Trinity Decision of 1892, the Supreme Court examined thousands of documents from the founding of the nation- every state constitution, every compact leading up to 1776, all of the various decisions of the courts. They finally ruled that America was a Christian nation. Samuel Adams, "the Father of the American Revolution", commenting on where citizens can learn of their rights - " These rights may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New  Testament." Patrick Henry, famous for declaring " Give me liberty, or give me death!", commenting on the influence of Christianity on the founding of this nation - " It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" Also of note, the published battle cry of the American Revolution was "No King but King Jesus" * - this post not endorsed by the NEA or the ACLU

A population predominately made of chistians does not a "christian nation" make.  It makes a nation mostly christian.  This country was not founded to be a christian nation, ruled by it's religious dictates.  It was a nation founded so that people could be free to believe in whatever version of god they wanted without fear of governmental reprisal.  This nation was created so that free people could remain free.  Thus why they included verbage to assure that a state mandated religion could not be made.  

Karsh

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find... Well, to some extent I have done so. Early church fathers did quote the very same text we consider the bible. That simply means that the text existed at that time. The early church fathers also could not decide who Jesus was. Was he the son of God? Was he actually a man? Was he actually God and not a man? Did he actually live at all? These questions were resolved by the early church, but it was in no way certain. cujet Cujet...please..the early church fathers did understand who Jesus is (not was) and spoke vehemently against the heresy's of their day.. Donatism Monastism Arianism (Jw's by todays standards) Gnostics Pelaginism Manichaeism Neo-Platonism and on and on and on..... They (the early church fathers may have disagreed on some issues) but they agreed on Who Christ is... Read some more.... Go read about the Coucil lof Nycea (sp?).  Where they decided that what books were divine and what books weren't, where the idea of trinity was created, where Mary was cast out of the bible and portrayed as a whore.  Prior to this even the jewish believers didn't think jesus was a divinity.  They just figured he was an enlightened human.  When the church started to see it's control slip due to the numerous conflicting accoutns of jesus present in every local church they needed to centralize their power and control.  They decided what the bibel should contain and then outlawed any other gospels then what they approved.  This is why the Gnostic Gospels were hidden.  They tell a far different story of jesus then the bible does.   Careful what you study.  If you study christain based research you will certain find that chiristianity is real and based on truth.  If you read historical research though you will find that nothing in the bible is as it was presented.   Karsh

So wrong freind...you presuppositions are wrong...but hey they are yours.

What I have read is the direct writings of the early chruch fathers and also even you read the writings of Josephus you come to the same conclusions....

History of the early chruch as written by the ones who recorded (outside the bible) line up with the bible...

Study history yourself from the men that wrote it...

Uh yes I know the Jews do not believe in the divinty of Jesus....WOW thanks for sharing that with me...it has shattered my faith now....

If you can't spell Nicea don't tell me about how much YOU know about it

As far as the gnostics, I think you have read a little to much Dan Brown...maybe...

peace out...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Cujet, you state you wished you had seen this before you "wasted" all the time on church.... You state the video brings together years of research... I think you may have in fact wasted your time...because if you have been convinced by a internet video that Christianity is a false or distorted whatever...then I would have to wonder what you did with all your time... Study the truth, don't lok at the visible church or the example of man for your answers. Study early church history, I think you would be surprised at what you find... Well, to some extent I have done so. Early church fathers did quote the very same text we consider the bible. That simply means that the text existed at that time. The early church fathers also could not decide who Jesus was. Was he the son of God? Was he actually a man? Was he actually God and not a man? Did he actually live at all? These questions were resolved by the early church, but it was in no way certain. cujet Cujet...please..the early church fathers did understand who Jesus is (not was) and spoke vehemently against the heresy's of their day.. Donatism Monastism Arianism (Jw's by todays standards) Gnostics Pelaginism Manichaeism Neo-Platonism and on and on and on..... They (the early church fathers may have disagreed on some issues) but they agreed on Who Christ is... Read some more.... Go read about the Coucil lof Nycea (sp?).  Where they decided that what books were divine and what books weren't, where the idea of trinity was created, where Mary was cast out of the bible and portrayed as a whore.  Prior to this even the jewish believers didn't think jesus was a divinity.  They just figured he was an enlightened human.  When the church started to see it's control slip due to the numerous conflicting accoutns of jesus present in every local church they needed to centralize their power and control.  They decided what the bibel should contain and then outlawed any other gospels then what they approved.  This is why the Gnostic Gospels were hidden.  They tell a far different story of jesus then the bible does.   Careful what you study.  If you study christain based research you will certain find that chiristianity is real and based on truth.  If you read historical research though you will find that nothing in the bible is as it was presented.   Karsh So wrong freind...you presuppositions are wrong...but hey they are yours. What I have read is the direct writings of the early chruch fathers and also even you read the writings of Josephus you come to the same conclusions.... History of the early chruch as written by the ones who recorded (outside the bible) line up with the bible... Study history yourself from the men that wrote it... Uh yes I know the Jews do not believe in the divinty of Jesus....WOW thanks for sharing that with me...it has shattered my faith now.... If you can't spell Nicea don't tell me about how much YOU know about it As far as the gnostics, I think you have read a little to much Dan Brown...maybe... peace out...

I have no idea what you're reading but your wrong.  I take theat back your reading research doen by believers with a vested interest in proving what they believe.  

Any serious study into history at best questions the accounts of the bible.  In fact any truly scientific study of anything related to the bible brings the biblical accounts into serious questionable territory.  

They can find no proof of a world wide flood.  They have found Sodom and Gomorra and can find no proof that there was any more hedonistic or immoral behavior in either town then in any other population center of the time or local.  They in fact determined that they were not destroyed by any mystical or magical force but by a volcanic explosion much like Pompeii or Vesuvius.

Josephefus makes reference to christians, but makes no references to an individual leading them or give him a name or validate any kind of supernatural being.  

They've been unable to find any proof that an entire of people wandered the desert for 40 years.  They find no proof that the jews were ever slaves of the Egyptians or that there was a slave rebellion leading to their freedom and wandering in the desert.    

Any serious research regarding the bible or any biblical can only lead one to question it's validity as a historical record.  The fact that much of the bible was written more then a hundred years after the fact and even then written my third parties to verbal tradition passed down a few generations.  Most of the bible was written even longer after the fact then this.  

The fact that the bible contradicts its self on numerous occasions and that even one translation to another will contradict each other in new places cast the bible into noting more then a work of fiction.

Karsh

Karsh


The questions you have raised have been debated here many times before, please do a a little more research and also try spell check, it tends to make ones case a little more credible for me at least.......

Peace out...

Oh no!  My 35 years of study, understanding and experience has been totally debunked by a 20 minute video!  I can't believe it was that easy to derail my belief system!

I am just glad I didn't watch any of Michael Moore's videos.  There's no telling where I would be today.

..............seriously, these points have all been addressed by various scholars.  I'd recommend any of the books by a former journalist/athiest, Lee Strobel.  "The Case for the Real Jesus" addresses much of these points.

I  have read some of Strobel's stuff. He makes some very good points. He does address most of the points made in the video. However, not all. This is one reason I remain a doubting Christian. There is just not enough proof one way or the other to move me too far from my beliefs either. At least, I have not seen the proof.

It seems we can find an answer for every questionable thing in Christianity. However, they are not all from the same faith based source. Some come from Catholics, some from Protestants, some from Orthodox, some from non faith based sources. How am I, a lowly idiot to put it all together and make it fit? I dunno. I could spend a lifetime on this very interesting subject and still not find the answer!

Franklin

Quoted: Quoted: Well that might be all fine and dandy... except... Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable The fact that I believe he is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for my sins is a matter of faith. You are free to agree with me, or not.   Actually it is disputable but not disprovable.  The Romans kept record of about everything they ever did, especially their legal proceedings.  Seems that they can't find any paperwork regarding any jesus person or that he was crucified after a trial.  There are lots of writings aobut a jesus but it's always third party stories about someone they heard about.  No witness acounts other then the bible, which is a flawed account due to not having been written at the time of the events and that it appears more allagorical then historical.   snip

Not surprising, since Jesus wasn't tried by the Romans.  He was tried and condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy (in a trial that violated virtually every legal tenet of Jewish law).

Since the Jews didn't have authority to execute anyone, they took him to Pilate, whom they expected to rubber-stamp their decision.  He instead actually interviewed Jesus, and finding he was from Galilee, decided to send him to Herod as a gesture of respect for his authority as Tetrarch of the province.  Herod was hoping for Jesus to do something spectacular, and when he didn't, got frustrated and sent him back.

So Pilate interviewed Jesus, found no reason to try or condemn him, and instead offered to free him as a gesture of goodwill for Passover.  The Jewish leaders got the crowd to yell for Barabbas instead.  Pilate, seeing that there was no placating the Sanhedrin this time, gave the order of execution.

But Jesus was never actually tried by a Roman court according to Roman law, so naturally there wouldn't be any record of a trial.

However, that's a pretty big claim to say that every record of every Roman trial -- including minor ones in far-flung colonies -- throughout the history of the empire has been found, translated and recorded.

If so, where can one find the complete legal proceedings for the Jerusalem garrison during the years 25-35 AD?  I mean, if the Romans were such good recordkeepers, one would expect them to be archived on the internet by now.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well that might be all fine and dandy... except... Jesus of Nazareth is a historically verifiable person.  He lived, and was crucified, this is indisputable The fact that I believe he is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for my sins is a matter of faith. You are free to agree with me, or not.   Actually it is disputable but not disprovable.  The Romans kept record of about everything they ever did, especially their legal proceedings.  Seems that they can't find any paperwork regarding any jesus person or that he was crucified after a trial.  There are lots of writings aobut a jesus but it's always third party stories about someone they heard about.  No witness acounts other then the bible, which is a flawed account due to not having been written at the time of the events and that it appears more allagorical then historical.   snip Not surprising, since Jesus wasn't tried by the Romans.  He was tried and condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy (in a trial that violated virtually every legal tenet of Jewish law). Since the Jews didn't have authority to execute anyone, they took him to Pilate, whom they expected to rubber-stamp their decision.  He instead actually interviewed Jesus, and finding he was from Galilee, decided to send him to Herod as a gesture of respect for his authority as Tetrarch of the province.  Herod was hoping for Jesus to do something spectacular, and when he didn't, got frustrated and sent him back. So Pilate interviewed Jesus, found no reason to try or condemn him, and instead offered to free him as a gesture of goodwill for Passover.  The Jewish leaders got the crowd to yell for Barabbas instead.  Pilate, seeing that there was no placating the Sanhedrin this time, gave the order of execution. But Jesus was never actually tried by a Roman court according to Roman law, so naturally there wouldn't be any record of a trial. However, that's a pretty big claim to say that every record of every Roman trial -- including minor ones in far-flung colonies -- throughout the history of the empire has been found, translated and recorded. If so, where can one find the complete legal proceedings for the Jerusalem garrison during the years 25-35 AD?  I mean, if the Romans were such good recordkeepers, one would expect them to be archived on the internet by now.

One would think they would find something though.  Letters to family outside the city describing the events, notes in the margin by a court reporter, calls for transportation to have him moved from one place to another, diary entries by a soldier who had to guard him or at least something.  So far nothing has been found to coroborate any of it.  Even in a court of law the bible would at best be called heresay evidence.  

Whatever may be true in the bible is impossible to tell at this point.  I personally believe that there was probally a man called jesus who led some kind of religious cult.  I don't believe he had any supernatural properties.  I don't think he was born of a virgin birth for several reasons.  One, it's just not possible in humans or at least not without ufo's being involved.  Two, numerous prophets of the time claimed the same thing and were infamous for manipulating their stories to post fit popular prophesies.  He must have had some extrordinary pressence though toahve beat out all the competing prophets to become one ofthe longest lived religion on the Earth.  I believe that he was probally connected to Mary Magdellen in more then a passing relationship.  It would have been quite strange for a jewish man of his age to be single and certainly would have been noted.  This also brings up the question about if he had any children.  Being a childless couple would have been noted as well in my opinion.  Now, I am not a Dan Brown fanitic.  I think he took a little bit of fact, a lot of coincidence and a huge amount of poetic liscence and fabricated a great story.  

Karsh  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me like there are a lot of people who are very interested in seeing to it that Christianity is disproved. ... while simultaneously embracing the political correctness that endorses the worship of Allah. Other then members of Islam (a tiny minority in the U.S.), can you give me one example of a person who is seeking to disprove Christianity and embraces Islam? I'm trying to think of one board member who fits that description.   The closest would be the Christian who married a Muslim, but he doesn't fit the description Motown_Steve gave.

They are so interrelated that one can't disprove one without disporving the other.  

Karsh

This thread belongs in GD but I applaud those of you who have taken the time to counter a troll at his work.

Quoted: This thread belongs in GD but I applaud those of you who have taken the time to counter a troll at his work.

What I'm a trol becasue I don't agree?

Karsh

Quoted: Quoted: This thread belongs in GD but I applaud those of you who have taken the time to counter a troll at his work. What I'm a trol becasue I don't agree? Karsh

Who said anything about you? I didn't even notice you. I was talking about the OP.