Zeitgeist Refuted
Even secular scholars have rejected the idea of Christianity borrowing from the ancient mysteries. The well-respected Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard writes in Theories of Primitive Religion that The evidence for this theory... is negligible.
The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament (resurrection) on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris.
In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld... This is far different than Jesus' resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven. –Dr. Norman Geisler.
This film refutes nothing. It is the same old worn out, ill-formed, unsupportable, and laughable arguments that religious zealots have always been barking mad about. In Zeitgeist they offer us verifiable evidence, and even tell us the sources so we can actually double check them. And Zeitgeist tells us to do something that no religious zealot will ever, ever say: Zeitgeist tells us NOT to take their word for anything, but to research and review the evidence and see for ourselves. Christians remain convinced that their 'faith' itself is suitable evidence, and that their man-made collection of ancient political propaganda is also itself conclusive evidence for god. Really. I can never make up my mind whether to feel sorry for zealots or just laugh at them.
So the whole Zeitgeist movement is wrong based solely on religious inaccuracies??????
@Neil Phillip Melly
Have you watched this ''doco'' . If so what are your thoughts on the similarities between, Joseph of the old testaments and Jesus in the new testaments and how would you explain this?
@Nothing_Is_Real
Your comment may not be completely right, however would it be true all things/theorys and lifes lessons have to be taught or learnt. All babies are born with the ability absorbe knowledge to help them develop into active member of their community.
Neil Phillip Melly
please discuss the documentary and the issues contained within it. your preaching is not only against the comment policy it adds nothing to the conversation
I pray one day that everyone
will fall in love with GOD's True Son
He is the Christ Emmanuel
who died for us and went to hell
to defeat the father of lies
Jesus won which is no surprise
since His Power is Heavenly
and HIs Love Perfect and Holy
theres no way He would ever lose
thats why you must make sure to choose
to take your heart out from this world
and commit your soul to the Lord
reveal your true spiritual side
so you no longer have to hide
the love you have for our Shepherd
who is also known as the Word
God has to be taught, so it is just an idea or opinion, if god was real we would be born with the knowledge without teaching.
Not to mention Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard has a bias opinion against Zeitgeist given his education is completely Christian from his beginnings and yet states there was no dying and rising God before Christianity; which any amount of amateur research will tell you is a lie. Numerous unbiased researchers have confirmed findings in this area over the years; so if not simply in the defense of the church does he deny it?
I keep seeing comments about money and dereliction within the church. Especially the topic of money.
The bible is often taken out of context by MEN who usually quote Malachi 3:10 when they need money for the church. The problem there is that that context is completely meant for the the Jewish priests from God. It had nothing to do with the common people.
In the OT when God wanted to build the arc He had Moses take up a free will offering. Also in Paul's epistles where the modern church gets its foundation and guidelines (or at least where it should) we are told that people should give as they feel and not be under compulsion. "God loves a cheerful giver". Paul himself however states very clearly that he would not burden the members of the church to support his ministry because people may consider him as just a money grubbing person peddling the Gospel for profit . He instead quoted the proverbs "the parents should lay up for the children, not the children for the parents" He worked and supported himself and his ministry everywhere he went so that the Gospel message was not hindered by such things. The church today has been corrupted by men, as I stated before. But this was nothing new. Men screwed up the Law given to Moses, so God had to intervene and so therefore sent the Messiah to fulfill the Law. And by the righteousness of His sacrifice, we have a means to receive salvation if we believe on that alone. We can do nothing in and of ourselves. This is a common misconception by many self righteous proclaiming Christians. This does more damage than good and only detracts from the purity of the work of Christ.
Whenever the focus is not on God, this happens. Its our nature as fallen men with a sinful nature. I say if you want to hate the church or the Christian faith, that's your business. But please, hate it for the right reasons. Men are the problem and not God.
I still maintain that God himself loves you no matter what you may think. And his love is not tainted with strings attached to your wallet or church attendance, or anything else.
You can be the most morally corrupt person this planet has ever known today. But if you repent of your ways and ask for forgiveness and believe on the finished work of God, you will receive grace for your actions. A free gift and no judgement attached.
It is the hardest thing to grasp for most people. You have a choice of accepting that or not. What you do with that is ultimately up to you and I nor anyone else can make you decide.
But know this, that the Gospel has come near to you.
Maybe this will be dissected and torn to peaces by those of you whose consciences have been seared, but for those of you who read this and by God's grace are made to understand. I am already praising God for you. Welcome to the family.
this is god speaking. i just wanted to say youve all been very naughty. now make sure you all pray to me tonight because i am not happy and my hemorrhoids are coming back. and to all you naughty little athiests out there, stop being so factual and making so much common sense you're making my people look stoopid. and to my followers, dont listen to a word, i swear to god i do exist, so make sure you come to church on sunday and donate all your money. if you dont you know what will happen. - GOD
The very first sentence is false, I have no hope for this film.
Could Jesus come along like an incognito pizza delivery guy or would he kiiind of come along as himself? Coz I asked once that he come into my life and the pizza delivery guy knocked on the door.
@ All you Atheists & Christians,
This website has some really good documentary about debates between Atheists and Christians, perhaps it is long time since even this one was also added here:
Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist
One of the Gurus of Atheism seems to have a great time in this debate.
I am sure this debate video will come here very soon. After all the guys running this website are such fair minded ones...
Christians were a cult and still are. Religion/Cult. I see no difference. I don't judge the people of any religion because many are good peopled but the only difference between a religion and a cult is that the religion will tag the cult as evil or what have you and the cult itself could care less. The Zeitgeist author doesn't need to site anyone to prove christianity is just an extension of the old ways because the oldest symbols and art speak for themselves. The sitings in zeitgeist are just people giving an interpretation of these symbols. when looking at the physical facts any rational person can see relation between paganism and christianity but the first christians were pagans and Jews so there should be much overlap. The stories they knew as pagans just became part of the bible. it seems the writers of this doc doesn't know much about astrology either in fact even less than that of the original zeitgeist. Religious texts were not meant to be taken literally either. Mythology is meant to keep help our understanding of who were are as human beings and is also important for our understanding of where we have come from as human beings. There is no written interpretation of Egyptian stories from those times because they spoke the myth and didn't write it down. There is no literal equal to jesus just as there is no literal equal story to Horus and any mythological being. Each story has original parts but all share parts at some point. the bible and jesus some of the lesser interesting stories because unlike the older stories we are meant to believe at least in the past few centuries that the word is literal. India has some of the oldest stories known to man and these do not need to be interpreted because they still exist! Stories of virgin births Resurrection and space battles with aliens. Not even going to get into your comments on roman greek mythology because this is getting annoying and boring. You have presented a work just as unbelievable as zeitgeist. As soon as you mentioned the Masons and entered the realm of conspiracy theory your work here became just as equal to zeitgeist no better and not any more credible. zzz zzz zzz
"I know that I know nothing" Socrates.
There is something else that we all know exists that nobody can prove..... your internal dialogue that voice inside your head. How do you prove that?
...because greater is he that is in me, than he that is in the world.
"I am God " oh yeah you are too.
This documentary (NOT) is a church service disguised as a documentary. It has no basis in reality and it argues points for which it has no evidence to back it up. I am willing to bet it was funded by a religious organization that consists of a bunch of republican right wing nut jobs. My suggestion to them is get a life. Don’t waste your time watching this propaganda biased bull.
ALL GODS ARE MAN MADE!!!!!
What part of this simple sentence do you religious dumb f--ks not undersand?????
hahaha brilliant!
ever thought of writing a book? sounds like you're worth a follow...
Ughh so I either take the apostle Paul's view on jesus or madame Blavatkly's view that jesus was an astrological space ghost.What happen to Truth.I need to know the truth.The Truth probably is that we all come up with convenient opinions and assumptions to serve our own agenda;which both the zeitgeist and this film do ... So who was the real jesus (if he really existed) and what was he truly like?
My Religious Philosophy is simple, I would rather believe that the diamond ring I lost Is still somewhere in my house and to one day find it. Atheist believe that the diamond will never be found and give up because it is the easier option because it releases them from the responsibility of searching.
There is absolutely no solid proof that god doesn't Exist just as much as there is no proof to the contrary so why do Atheist feel like they can take some sort of "Intellectual" High ground because their priests are called scientists.I know some radical Christians and I Dislike them just as much as the next guy and honestly a lot of them are a bit strange but on the other hand ive only met a handful of atheist that have solid personalized opinions and arguments....Most just adopt their smartest buddy or role models Philosophy... I believe until proven wrong, not the other way around. Some might say they would prefer to not to have God exist but In my Opinion, They are either lying to themselves or have a fear of eternity which is a scary thought.
This film, Zeitgeist Refuted, does not refute anything whatsoever. It is a bunch of fundamentalist religious people citing their belief and faith as proof of God, then supporting their ejaculations with more belief, then more faith, and then to top it all off they close with even more belief and even more faith. They offer not one shred of fact or evidence to support their claims. It may be news to many in the general public, but the information in the religious part of Zeitgeist is old, well accepted hat in academia. That Jesus is a myth contrived partly from earlier god myths, and partly from a Markan composite of characters from the Homeric epics is well know and widely accepted by thousands of historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, classical studies scholars, theologians, etc., in the US and around the world. This fact seems new to some people because most scholars (in the US at least) don't publish their research findings to the general public, because they know they will be viciously attacked by christians.
I'm waiting for 'Zeitgeist: Refuted: Refuted'. Let's face it, those of us that have families and jobs that take up our time, the only way to come to some kind of decision on what is real and what is hearsay, is to pick and chose which doc's and books to read and form your own opinions. Short of being a biblical scholar where you get paid to read the various scriptures and the enormous amount of books about them, there is no way a layman can have enough information to be sure about anything.
That being said, while part of me feel that Zeitgeist is truly a conspiracy theory and not representative of any truth, it is so well laid out and cohesive as to be very persuasive. This 'Refuted' doc however is so all over the place it is difficult to even follow or process any of it. And it comes off as more trying to disprove something instead of trying to prove it. A disproof doesn't mean proof.
I am not a religious person but I am not so set in that that I am not open to ideas that may change my mind in the future. This doc however doesn't come close to changing my opinion.
A REFUTATION???
I will say first that I am an atheist, and this work does not convince me to change that, though it definitely tries. I will say, however, that if you pay attention to it it is a much more competent presentation of a Christian defense than the vast majority of what we usually see, and it does throw enough opposition on the possible roots of Christianity as presented in Zeitgeist to make me accept that Zeitgeist may quite possibly have this point wrong. However, to call this a refutation of the entire precept of Zeitgeist is also in error... absolutely. In feeling threatened by the presentation of Christianity in Zeitgeist the creator of this work missed the much larger, and ultimately more important arguments that Zeitgeist sets out to present. In fact, I think if the author here had not been so impulsively reactionary he might have found that he, and the bible, in many ways validate the ideas of Zeitgeist and the two can quite reasonable co-exist.
How do Zeitgeist and the bible's views on usury compare?
How do they compare on the value of war?
How do they compare on the true value of a person?
How might a GOOD Christian interpret man's role as the stewards of the Earth-- is it to be exploitative or symbiotic?
In fact, in an interview with Peter Joseph he commented that there are many things he likes in the bible, he just sees the evil in its application as a religion, and the division it has spawned amongst people. In some ways the author of this work even supports this claim, but he is careful to keep saying true Christians believe in peace, love, and harmony, and argues that many (if not almost all) are not true to the bible or Christ's teachings. I will not concern myself with how he knows his IS the true faith-- I believe he is trying to be true to his own moral compass. I will not get into every detail of his 'refutation', which are in at least a few cases apparently not more validated than the passages to the contrary in Zeitgeist. In fact, I think it unfortunate that Zeitgeist gave so much attention and such prominent placement to the views on Christianity, since it must so polarize many people's responses that for many it render's them incapable of moving on and finding the value in Zeitgeist... it creates the most division on this point alone, and undermines the message.
Take Zeitgeist with a grain of salt... sure. It would be contrary to the message of Zeitgeist not to. But in getting caught up in the issue of the existence or absence of God, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
"The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. "
...
Uh... OSIRIS.
That's enough right there to stop me even watching this video.
Why is it, that the most discussed topics here are religion-based? We as a civilication are at the brink of collapse, and people are still shoving their heads in the sand. Religion does not solve any of today's crisis', it only fuels them. All wars fought today (and in the past) are about religion. Millions and millions have been murdered, tortured, mutilated, and deprived of their most basic needs, in the name of God or Allah or whatever you will name it. In my opinion it is the deadliest invention of humankind ever. I lost almost all hope of our species to survive in the future, and as I am to chicken to kill myself, I will turn my back on civilication and go back to the roots of mankind. I'm learning how to survive in the wilds, how to live of the forest, and when I'm ready I will go as far away from here a possible, and let the rest of the world kill itself. And if people don't want to starve, die of dehydration or commit suicide because of all the debts they have, they would be wise to do the same. You don't need money to live, as well as religion. You need food and fresh water. That's all. And nature will provide, if you just know where to look. I believe.... not in god, not in politics, not in financial institutes, not even in mankind... I believe in myself, and thats all the belief I need!!