Why are you so scared of Zeitgeist?

[Blue_Sargasso]

Many people on this forum are clearly hostile to "Zeitgeist the movie". I'm curious about the knee-jerk hostility to this video.

I'm an atheist, and I found nothing odd or controversial about it's debunking of Christianity. I've read any number of things along the same lines as the assertions made in Zeitgeist. The fact is that anyone who knows anything at all about the history of Christianity knows that the Christian religion is a cobbled together pile of nonsense (like most other religions!) and Christianity is such an ambiguous religion that it can be used to support pretty much any stance. I mean how can you have extreme left wingers and right wingers sharing the same religion and both finding justification for their diametrically opposed points of view? Last time I checked, I was completely unaware of any capitalist being a member of the communist party. That's because capitalism and communism both make their positions clear. Christianity fails utterly to achieve this. What irritated me about Part 1 of Zeitgeist was that it seemed to hint at some 'new' religion. If such a religion emerges in Part 2, I'm sure it will be as much of a joke as Christianity.

The part of Zeitgeist that dealt with 9/11 etc was intriguing. I wasn't persuaded by it, but I thought there were a few interesting points that could do with a bit more scrutiny, to clear the record if nothing else.

I had a lot of time for the section dealing with the banking system. For me, much of this was spot on, although I found the stuff about the North American Union quite comical. I don't see anything much wrong with the EU or the proposed NAU!

So, all in all, Zeitgeist was interesting and thought-provoking. You don't have to believe it to think that it raised some important issues. So, again, why the hostility towards it on this forum?

David Rothkopf is a respected academic and his book 'Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making' contains, albeit in much more sober and respectable terms, the same message as the bulk of conspiracy theories - that a small group of rich and powerful people have engineered a system that is massively distorted in their favour and incredibly weighted against those who are not part of the highest echelons of powers.

As far as I'm concerned, as much scrutiny as possible should be turned towards the 6,000 people that Rothkopf claims are the effective rulers of the world. Zeitgeist, for all of its smoke and mirrors, nevertheless achieves the important task of putting bankers in the spotlight (for the money men are obviously the key to a money-based hierarchy just as geniuses would be to an intelligence-based hierarchy and saintly people to a system based on good deeds towards others).

So instead of scoffing at Zeitgeist why aren't the skeptics on this forum being a bit more skeptical about the banking system, religion, democracy etc. Are the people on this forum just pointless debaters or are they actually trying to achieve something?

For my part, I think a world controlled by bankers, celebrities and crazy religions is ghastly and I would like to see something done about it. Zeitgeist mounts a creditable attack on these things; the skeptics on this site just endlessly (and smugly) carp and do nothing to change a thing.

Give me Zeitgeist any day over complacent skeptics.

Better still, why can't the skeptics put together something as interesting as Zeitgeist? Because they have no passion for anything perhaps, nothing that motivates them to get off their asses and try to make a difference? Is 'skeptic' another word for people who are doing very nicely, thank you very much, and don't wish to see the applecart being upset? Is 'debunking' merely an exercise in maintaining the status quo?

The one thing you never get from this forum is the impression that anyone is prepared to do anything other than scoff. And that's a tragedy given that there are a lot of smart people on this site who could make a big difference if they became activists. The conspiracy theorists may be crazy, but at least they try things. And much better a tryer than a scoffer!

[1337m4n]

The reason for the hostility to Zeitgeist is because it is false.

Who cares if most of us are atheists? Being an atheists doesn't mean you have to make up lies about religion just to attack it. As skeptics we must examine everything with a crucial eye regardless of how much it "agrees" with us. Yes, Zeitgeist attacks religion, but that doesn't make it any less a pile of crap.

The conspiracy theorists may be crazy, but at least they try things.

Oh you are too funny. Yes the entire world is controlled by evil men who get away with mass murder on a daily basis, but oh! The conspiracy theorists are MAKING YOUTUBE VIDEOS! Oooooohhh! I bet the evil NWO are reaaaaaally scared of that! Yeah...make Youtube videos! THAT'LL show those evil NWO!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Subject: Why are you so scared of Zeitgeist?

Many people on this forum are clearly hostile to "Zeitgeist the movie". I'm curious about the knee-jerk hostility to this video.


Right out of the gate you've already got yourself a problem: you're implying that the hostility toward this film is the result of fear and only fear.

You know that's not true, right?

[ElMondoHummus]

Right out of the gate you've already got yourself a problem: you're implying that the hostility toward this film is the result of fear and only fear.

You know that's not true, right?

That's a good point. So many people cheering for a certain hypothesis, philiosophy, or group want to characterize criticism as being motivated by fear. That right there is a red herring, and an attempt to shape the argument away from what it genuinely should concern itself with, which is the logical merit of the particular viewpoint.

I don't know a darn thing about Zeitgeist, but frankly, from the posts I've seen here about it, there's not a single iota of fear from posters critical of it at all. Those posts have pointed out errors and logical fallacies, but none of them have given even the slightest impression that they're posts that were written because the posting member was afraid of the movie's contents. Rather, they were correcting mistakes.

[ElMondoHummus]

As a follow up, here are threads where the work was discussed:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85264
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108856
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110120

ETA: The last link in particular is noteworthy. The thread title should explain why: Zeitgeist Part 1 Debunking

[1337m4n]

I am scared of Zeitgeist. More specifically, I am scared that people will throw their lives away over blatantly false information. Truthers make death threats, beat up girls in wheelchairs, and get themselves arrested all in the name of false information. I am scared that one day a Truther will do something dangerous and hurt himself and others in the name of his false information. We've seen dozens of times that they have the motive, we've seen LCF posters threatening violence. If they ever do something really stupid, I won't be surprised.

So yes I guess you could say that I am scared of Zeitgeist, but not for the reason that BS implies.

[Nim Chimpsky]

This, unfortunately, is the Zeitgeist marketing strategy. Take an intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect POS movie and promote on the internets on message boards, youtube and blogs.

This person has no desire whatsoever for any intellectual discourse.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115448

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115421

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115607


And I'm sure there will be more.

[Drudgewire]

Zeitgeist used to beat me up in grade school and I never got over it. :(

[CptColumbo]

I'm as afraid of "Zeitgeist" as I am of The Core. Just because I negatively criticise a movie/video, due in large part to its use junk science and general reliance on BS, doesn't mean I fear it. I may just think it sucks.

[parky76]

i didnt like zeitgeist cause is was a lot of bull. about jesus, about 9-11, about a whole lot of things.

[T.A.M.]

I don't like Zeitgeist because the name sounds scary!!

TAM;)

[tsig]

Many people on this forum are clearly hostile to "Zeitgeist the movie". I'm curious about the knee-jerk hostility to this video.

I'm an atheist, and I found nothing odd or controversial about it's debunking of Christianity. I've read any number of things along the same lines as the assertions made in Zeitgeist. The fact is that anyone who knows anything at all about the history of Christianity knows that the Christian religion is a cobbled together pile of nonsense (like most other religions!) and Christianity is such an ambiguous religion that it can be used to support pretty much any stance. I mean how can you have extreme left wingers and right wingers sharing the same religion and both finding justification for their diametrically opposed points of view? Last time I checked, I was completely unaware of any capitalist being a member of the communist party. That's because capitalism and communism both make their positions clear. Christianity fails utterly to achieve this. What irritated me about Part 1 of Zeitgeist was that it seemed to hint at some 'new' religion. If such a religion emerges in Part 2, I'm sure it will be as much of a joke as Christianity.

The part of Zeitgeist that dealt with 9/11 etc was intriguing. I wasn't persuaded by it, but I thought there were a few interesting points that could do with a bit more scrutiny, to clear the record if nothing else.

I had a lot of time for the section dealing with the banking system. For me, much of this was spot on, although I found the stuff about the North American Union quite comical. I don't see anything much wrong with the EU or the proposed NAU!

So, all in all, Zeitgeist was interesting and thought-provoking. You don't have to believe it to think that it raised some important issues. So, again, why the hostility towards it on this forum?

David Rothkopf is a respected academic and his book 'Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making' contains, albeit in much more sober and respectable terms, the same message as the bulk of conspiracy theories - that a small group of rich and powerful people have engineered a system that is massively distorted in their favour and incredibly weighted against those who are not part of the highest echelons of powers.

As far as I'm concerned, as much scrutiny as possible should be turned towards the 6,000 people that Rothkopf claims are the effective rulers of the world. Zeitgeist, for all of its smoke and mirrors, nevertheless achieves the important task of putting bankers in the spotlight (for the money men are obviously the key to a money-based hierarchy just as geniuses would be to an intelligence-based hierarchy and saintly people to a system based on good deeds towards others).

So instead of scoffing at Zeitgeist why aren't the skeptics on this forum being a bit more skeptical about the banking system, religion, democracy etc. Are the people on this forum just pointless debaters or are they actually trying to achieve something?

For my part, I think a world controlled by bankers, celebrities and crazy religions is ghastly and I would like to see something done about it. Zeitgeist mounts a creditable attack on these things; the skeptics on this site just endlessly (and smugly) carp and do nothing to change a thing.

Give me Zeitgeist any day over complacent skeptics.

Better still, why can't the skeptics put together something as interesting as Zeitgeist? Because they have no passion for anything perhaps, nothing that motivates them to get off their asses and try to make a difference? Is 'skeptic' another word for people who are doing very nicely, thank you very much, and don't wish to see the applecart being upset? Is 'debunking' merely an exercise in maintaining the status quo?

The one thing you never get from this forum is the impression that anyone is prepared to do anything other than scoff. And that's a tragedy given that there are a lot of smart people on this site who could make a big difference if they became activists. The conspiracy theorists may be crazy, but at least they try things. And much better a tryer than a scoffer!

From looking at your other posts it's clear you are no atheist so who are you and what's your woo.

You are sitting on your ass in front of a computer berating others for sitting on their ass in front of a computer. Maybe yours has a mirror instead of a screen.

[tsig]

This, unfortunately, is the Zeitgeist marketing strategy. Take an intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect POS movie and promote on the internets on message boards, youtube and blogs.

This person has no desire whatsoever for any intellectual discourse.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115448

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115421

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115607


And I'm sure there will be more.



Four posts, four new threads and never an answer.

Humm could be a pattern here.

[fullflavormenthol]

I don't like it because it is nonsense. I think religion is bunk, but I don't have to make up lies about it to justify my disbelief. Also you should look at the sources of part one to realize that most of them...most being one person Dorothy Murdoch...are not atheists but more of the New Age variety trying to disprove all other faiths by hook or by crook.

Also, I find the statement about knowledge of history amusing. The more you know about history the more you will find Zeitgeist to be wrong.

The more you know about linguistics, the more you find Zeitgeist to be wrong. Especially inportant is to understand that Egyptians and Hebrews didn't speak English.

But most importantly Zeitgeist is wrong for the same reason a lot of those types of documentaries are wrong. They started with a conclusion and tried to find the evidence for it by reinterpreting things to fit their perspective.

That and I hate the fake nature of its creator...who claimed that he made the movie as his personal notes to "make sense out of things"; and had to be begged by his friends to release it. As an amateur film maker myself I can tell you that people don't make 2 hour movies as "notes". The same fake crap as Avery just happening to believe in 9-11 CT's while making his fictional movie about 9-11 CT's.

[The Silver Shadow]

I don't mind the whole debunking of religion. I like to believe there is something, but I know that the scientific evidence outweighs the other stuff.

The only reason I fear Zeitgeist is because I think it was a far worse movie than the 2005 version of War of the Worlds, and I'm not one to say that a movie sucks...

[JimBenArm]

The whole "Z" thing is what bothers me. Words with "Z" are evil, and cause crop failure, dandruff and halitosis.
That's why I fear it.

[Gazpacho]

double post

[Gazpacho]

I would rather ask why you, Sargosso, find it so important to defend Zeitgest, despite the numerous basic errors of fact that have been pointed out. Do you think it improves your atheist cred? Does it somehow make you more of a "free thinker" if you slavishly defend a bogus documentary?

[Undesired Walrus]

My brother-in-law asked me if I'd seen this the other day.

I ended up just nodding with false interest and wishing for a quick divorce between the two.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Just to give you a personal anecdote.......

The first time I heard of Zeitgeist, was from a cashier at my local "Planet K" head-shop. He asked me if I heard of Ron Paul before, then proceeded to hand me a folded-up wrap with the words "Google:Zeitgeist Movie."

This doesn't help my argument against the Willie Nelson Hypothesis, I know, but I had to share it.

Oh, I forgot, it sucks too....

[Pardalis]

And that's a tragedy given that there are a lot of smart people on this site who could make a big difference if they became activists.

Activists, you mean like giving out pamplets at the corner of the street like the Larouche cult members, or heckle politicians at rallies like the Wearen'tverybright guys?

No thanks.

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

My brother-in-law asked me if I'd seen this the other day.

I ended up just nodding with false interest and wishing for a quick divorce between the two.

ROFLMFAO!:D

[timhau]

The conspiracy theorists may be crazy, but at least they try things. And much better a tryer than a scoffer!

So... have you tried sticking your face in the fan?

[Myriad]

I'm scared of Zeitgeist because while the name could mean "spirit of the age," it could also mean "time-traveling poltergeist." And I have enough trouble remembering where I put things, without some phantasm telekinesing my car keys to next week.

Respecterfully,
Myriad

[Myriad]

So... have you tried sticking your face in the fan?


I don't know about him, but I have. As long as it's a reasonable fan (like, a window fan from K-Mart, rather than, say, the main ventilation fan for Alpha Colony), and you stick your face in it from the front (facing the direction the air is blowing from), it's pretty harmless.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[beachnut]

Made up, it is fiction; no value. If you like false information, this is the film.

I am sad, not scared, people are dumb enough to believe it.

[X]

I'm not scared of Zeitgeist.

I watched it because a friend of mine pointed me towards it.

It was horrible.
They were wrong in every way they could possible have been wrong.

The part about Christianity was almost offensively bad (and I'm an atheist). There are many charges that can be levelled against the Abrahamic faiths without having to make stuff up. As Leetman said, just because someone doesn't beleive in a given religion is no reason to go lying about it.

The part about 9/11 took Loose Change, and made it worse. I don't need to comment further.

The part about the tax thing, well that's not anytihng I really care about. Suffice to say it was a mishmash of almost-unrelated trivialities and severly stretched conclusions. Besides, the tax thing has been debunked elsew

[Pardalis]

Sargasso, since you haven't replied to any of the threads you've started so far I don't expect you to answer, but what kind of "activism" did you have in mind?

[Nick227]

Many people on this forum are clearly hostile to "Zeitgeist the movie". I'm curious about the knee-jerk hostility to this video.

I'm an atheist, and I found nothing odd or controversial about it's debunking of Christianity. I've read any number of things along the same lines as the assertions made in Zeitgeist. The fact is that anyone who knows anything at all about the history of Christianity knows that the Christian religion is a cobbled together pile of nonsense (like most other religions!) and Christianity is such an ambiguous religion that it can be used to support pretty much any stance.


The only problem I have with Zeitgeist is that it just isn't true. I also enjoyed watching it and am pretty sympathetic to conspiracy politics. But Zeitgeist is just a propaganda movie. It uses all sorts of little ploys to convince you that you're watching some great revelation of hidden truth, it's well produced, but scratch below the surface and you'll find that nearly all of it is sourced from a handful of writers. Goebbels would have been proud of Zeitgeist.

Part 1 has been done to death several times over on this forum. It's bollocks, basically, and really just for people who don't want to study the subject matter themselves. Your comments about Christianity might reflect the beliefs of many new-agers, but they don't reflect what we know of history. Read, Blue Sargasso, there are a lot of books out there these days. I like Elaine Pagels. Christianity was not just cobbled together from bits of other religions.

I'm not a Christian, neither an atheist. The best thing really about Zeitgeist is the name for it one hears for it on this forum every now and again - Shitegeist.

Nick

BTW, could I ask you how come you never debate in any of these posts you start here?

[dudalb]

We don't like the Zeitgeist Jesus/Horus theory because it is a load of crap.
Look, if you want to debunk Christianity, fine; but don't use a bunch of crap to do it.
Sadly, it is incredible how many people are defending Zeitgeist on the grounds it "really socks it to" Chriasnianty.

[GreNME]

Blue_Sargasso, why are you so scared of Hanlon's Razor?

[fullflavormenthol]

We don't like the Zeitgeist Jesus/Horus theory because it is a load of crap.
Look, if you want to debunk Christianity, fine; but don't use a bunch of crap to do it.
Sadly, it is incredible how many people are defending Zeitgeist on the grounds it "really socks it to" Christianity.

That is about the truth of it. My favorite are the people who admit there are errors, but then tell me to "research" it; and by research they mean shallowing the crap within by Acharya S (the "intellectual" basis for part 1) without question.

[Gazpacho]

That is about the truth of it. My favorite are the people who admit there are errors, but then tell me to "research" it; and by research they mean shallowing the crap within by Acharya S (the "intellectual" basis for part 1) without question.
I think this is a form of the "it really makes you think" angle.

For someone who has been an uninquisitive Christian their whole life and never exposed to any outright blasphemy, perhaps it does. For someone who hasn't been so sheltered, it really shouldn't.

[Drudgewire]

:words:

Why are you so scared of responding to the answers for the very questions you asked?

Give me complacent skeptics any day over chicken:rule10 spammers.

[gnome]

I am scared of Zeitgeist--scared that people will pay attention to it and believe it, and that the facts will become even more obscured.

[sts60]

I'm scared that limposts->infinity (Nposts by BS/Nthreads started by BS) = 1.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The reason for the hostility to Zeitgeist is because it is false.

The part about Sun worship?

:gnome:

[parky76]

Zeitgeist suggests there is a link between the Sun and the word "son".

I rest my case.

[GreNME]

The reason for the hostility to Zeitgeist is because it is false.

The part about Sun worship?

:gnome:

Actually, yes. The film consistently gets its references mistaken, completely off-course, or otherwise wrong in any appreciable manner. The main examples used-- Horus, Mithra/Mithras, Krishna, Attis, Moses, Sargon, Joseph (son of Jacob)-- were not sun-gods.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Zeitgeist suggests there is a link between the Sun and the word "son".

I rest my case.

Is the Messiah not the son/sun?

[fullflavormenthol]

Is the Messiah not the son/sun?
No. Unless your being sarcastic, and then the answer would still be no.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No. Unless your being sarcastic, and then the answer would still be no.

Results 1 - 10 of about 688,000 for messiah son.

Results 1 - 10 of about 510,000 for messiah sun.

[fullflavormenthol]

Results 1 - 10 of about 688,000 for messiah son.

Results 1 - 10 of about 510,000 for messiah sun.
At the risk of sounding ignorant here, please explain your post in further detail.

EDIT. Ah! Search engine? Well many of the Messiah sun results are actually web pages discussing Sun Myung Moon. So I mean, any unrestrained web search will return strange results. Also on google...739,000 for messiah son, and most of these are specific to the subject.

[sts60]

Results 1 - 10 of about 688,000 for messiah son.

Results 1 - 10 of about 510,000 for messiah sun.

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,120,000 for flat earth. (0.21 seconds)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,120,000 for flat earth. (0.21 seconds)

Those results are because of the deniers.

:gnome:

[1337m4n]

The part about Sun worship?

:gnome:

Why single out one part? Pretty much all of it is false.

[fullflavormenthol]

Why single out one part? Pretty much all of it is false.

Yeah...that is about the whole of it.

[GreNME]

Is the Messiah not the son/sun?

Last I checked, the Moshiach has nothing to do with Shemesh, though he'd obviously be ben to someone.

If you don't understand what I mean, then you've proven my point.

[GreNME]

Results 1 - 10 of about 688,000 for messiah son.

Results 1 - 10 of about 510,000 for messiah sun.

Popularity does not denote factual accuracy. Wishes aren't fishes.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is the Messiah not the fils/soleil?

I translated the last two words of your question into french.

It doesn't have quite the same ring anymore, does it?

[bynmdsue]

Is the Messiah not the son/sun?

What is "son" in Hebrew?Latin?Greek?Egyptian?Aramaic?
What is "sun" in Hebrew?Latin?Greek?Egyptian?Aramaic?
Are they homonyms in any language other than English?

or did they speak English in Biblical Palestine?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What is "son" in Hebrew?Latin?Greek?Egyptian?Aramaic?
What is "sun" in Hebrew?Latin?Greek?Egyptian?Aramaic?
Are they homonyms in any language other than English?

or did they speak English in Biblical Palestine?

Is three different people making the same point in three different ways enough to get it through Jeromes thick skull?

Find out after these commercial messages!

[GreNME]

Are they homonyms in any language other than English?

No. One could argue that they might have been in the Greek, but the argument would be from ignorance of pronounciation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You guys are really arguing that the ancients did not worship the Sun.

:dl:



Were they worshiping "real" Gods?

[Gurdur]

... Were they worshiping "real" Gods?

Jerome, that is simply not an honest remark. *

If you have no interest in the actual issues, butt out.
If you are deeply ignorant about the full huge panoply of gods worshipped at various times, be honest and reveal your ignorance. Hint: few of them were sun gods.

But this kind of remark of yours is simply childish and dumb.

______

* But I'm guessing you knew that already anyway.

[GreNME]

You guys are really arguing that the ancients did not worship the Sun.

I didn't see anyone say that. I pointed out specifically that the ones mentioned in Zeitgeist were not sun gods, and even listed the names of the ones I was referring to (because I knew you would try that goofy straw man).

However, care to name which "ancients" you're talking about? I don't know of any culture who called themselves "the ancients" in any particularly notable manner in history.

Were they worshiping "real" Gods?

Real enough to them, but just as irrelevant to me as the "real"-ness of any modern gods.

Jerome, trust me on this one: this is a subject that I can guarantee for you that trying to argue the academics of it with me is just going to make you look stupid to everyone but yourself. Saying that there were some people, in some points in history, who engaged in solar worship is one thing (and not what Zeitgeist claims). Saying that all people come from people who worshiped the Sun is patently false.

[Jonnyclueless]

Did Jerome wander into the conspiracy forum again and leave a trail of incorrect information?

[fullflavormenthol]

Jerome. Religions evolve. Ancient man would have worshipped the sun, but that is in the stages of animism. Christianity comes about in the stage of monotheism. In my view of things Monotheism is in stage 5 of the evolution of religion, while animism is basically stage 1.

Does the monotheistic god control the sun? Yes. But..that is different than having a sun god OR worshipping the sun itself as a god. You obviously would have to see the difference.

This is one of my hobbies. Trust me Jerome, this is the first thing that brought me to this forum; and I am well versed enough to tear apart Zeitgeist/Acharya S./The Secret Doctrine/Massy or whatever crap people want to believe in these days.

Between me, GreNME, and Nick227 you'll have your hands full on this one.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome. Religions evolve. Ancient man would have worshipped the sun, but that is in the stages of animism. Christianity comes about in the stage of monotheism. In my view of things Monotheism is in stage 5 of the evolution of religion, while animism is basically stage 1.

Does the monotheistic god control the sun? Yes. But..that is different than having a sun god OR worshipping the sun itself as a god. You obviously would have to see the difference.



Does the sun die (stagnant on the horizon) for three days and is reborn on December 25th?

:gnome:

[fullflavormenthol]

The real question to ask yourself on this one is, is December 25th of any significance to Christianity ala what is actually in their religious scripture. That is to say, find the verse in the Bible that says Jesus was either born or died on December 25th or the proof that early Christians celebrated the birth or death of Jesus on December 25th.

Don't pull out old arguments Jerome.

To be fair, read through these first before bringing up old points;

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85264
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108856
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110120

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The real question to ask yourself on this one is, is December 25th of any significance to Christianity ala what is actually in their religious scripture. That is to say, find the verse in the Bible that says Jesus was either born or died on December 25th or the proof that early Christians celebrated the birth or death of Jesus on December 25th.


The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?



:gnome:

[fullflavormenthol]

The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?



:gnome:
Ah...good question. Because there was a pagan holiday celebrating Saturn that took place around the 25th. You see the Catholic church was big on replacing the earlier pagan holidays with ones based on their religion. For example...Samhain is replaced with All Saints Day. So you answered your own question. It is to replace the old celebrations with ones based on the current religion completely divorced from the actual religious scriptures.

Thank you for answering your own accusation.

Also the Bible merely implies that Jesus was born at the time the shepards were in the fields; that could be in the spring, summer or early fall. The point is that no one would know.

Here is a good page to work with, though it is incomplete.

http://ct.grenme.com/index.php?title=Zeitgeist_Part_I&redirect=no

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ah...good question. Because there was a pagan holiday celebrating Saturn that took place around the 25th. You see the Catholic church was big on replacing the earlier pagan holidays with ones based on their religion. For example...Samhain is replaced with All Saints Day. So you answered your own question. It is to replace the old celebrations with ones based on the current religion completely divorced from the actual religious scriptures.

Thank you for answering your own accusation.



Uhh, we are agreeing and you do not get it because you are so caught up in being right.


You agree that sun worship IS what modern religion practices.

[fullflavormenthol]

Uhh, we are agreeing and you do not get it because you are so caught up in being right.


You agree that sun worship IS what modern religion practices.
No. If you can't understand the post I would recommend reading it again, and then after that going to the library; after that maybe doing further research.

Modern religion doesn't practice Sun worship unless that is specifically what they do. You the ignorance of your statement should easily be apparent to you. I'll leave it for you to re-read that post and figure out where it is wrong.

[fullflavormenthol]

They replaced a holiday, and Jerome takes that as proof of one of the dumbest CT's on the market today.

[Spung]

I haven't seen the movie, so I need a brief catch-up: does it make some facile Ra (monotheistic Amarna-era radar blip version)-->Sol Invictus-->Jesus (John 8:12 Lux Mundi, Medieval Neoplatonic version) link? Or is it more complicated and potentially loonier? Mithras?

[Oh, and if you'd ever tried to use the bathroom at Zeitgeist, you'd be scared, too. Good beer selection and the grill outside is nice, but, damn, those SOMA bike messengers sure can't aim]

[fullflavormenthol]

Mithras, Horus type nonsense really. Nothing as intelligent as you are talking. There are many threads here for a good premier.

EDIT: Since I am on my 5th Whiskey Sour, I think it is best for me to leave this debate for the night.

[timhau]

Results 1 - 10 of about 688,000 for messiah son.

Results 1 - 10 of about 510,000 for messiah sun.

Yes, that's how etymological research is conducted. With Google.

And I was the one thinking I'd never use the 'ignore' function.

[Profanz]

Many people on this forum are clearly hostile to "Zeitgeist the movie". I'm curious about the knee-jerk hostility to this video.

I'm an atheist, and I found nothing odd or controversial about it's debunking of Christianity. I've read any number of things along the same lines as the assertions made in Zeitgeist. The fact is that anyone who knows anything at all about the history of Christianity knows that the Christian religion is a cobbled together pile of nonsense (like most other religions!) and Christianity is such an ambiguous religion that it can be used to support pretty much any stance. I mean how can you have extreme left wingers and right wingers sharing the same religion and both finding justification for their diametrically opposed points of view? Last time I checked, I was completely unaware of any capitalist being a member of the communist party. That's because capitalism and communism both make their positions clear. Christianity fails utterly to achieve this. What irritated me about Part 1 of Zeitgeist was that it seemed to hint at some 'new' religion. If such a religion emerges in Part 2, I'm sure it will be as much of a joke as Christianity.

The part of Zeitgeist that dealt with 9/11 etc was intriguing. I wasn't persuaded by it, but I thought there were a few interesting points that could do with a bit more scrutiny, to clear the record if nothing else.

I had a lot of time for the section dealing with the banking system. For me, much of this was spot on, although I found the stuff about the North American Union quite comical. I don't see anything much wrong with the EU or the proposed NAU!

So, all in all, Zeitgeist was interesting and thought-provoking. You don't have to believe it to think that it raised some important issues. So, again, why the hostility towards it on this forum?

David Rothkopf is a respected academic and his book 'Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making' contains, albeit in much more sober and respectable terms, the same message as the bulk of conspiracy theories - that a small group of rich and powerful people have engineered a system that is massively distorted in their favour and incredibly weighted against those who are not part of the highest echelons of powers.

As far as I'm concerned, as much scrutiny as possible should be turned towards the 6,000 people that Rothkopf claims are the effective rulers of the world. Zeitgeist, for all of its smoke and mirrors, nevertheless achieves the important task of putting bankers in the spotlight (for the money men are obviously the key to a money-based hierarchy just as geniuses would be to an intelligence-based hierarchy and saintly people to a system based on good deeds towards others).

So instead of scoffing at Zeitgeist why aren't the skeptics on this forum being a bit more skeptical about the banking system, religion, democracy etc. Are the people on this forum just pointless debaters or are they actually trying to achieve something?

For my part, I think a world controlled by bankers, celebrities and crazy religions is ghastly and I would like to see something done about it. Zeitgeist mounts a creditable attack on these things; the skeptics on this site just endlessly (and smugly) carp and do nothing to change a thing.

Give me Zeitgeist any day over complacent skeptics.

Better still, why can't the skeptics put together something as interesting as Zeitgeist? Because they have no passion for anything perhaps, nothing that motivates them to get off their asses and try to make a difference? Is 'skeptic' another word for people who are doing very nicely, thank you very much, and don't wish to see the applecart being upset? Is 'debunking' merely an exercise in maintaining the status quo?

The one thing you never get from this forum is the impression that anyone is prepared to do anything other than scoff. And that's a tragedy given that there are a lot of smart people on this site who could make a big difference if they became activists. The conspiracy theorists may be crazy, but at least they try things. And much better a tryer than a scoffer!

Because Zeitgeist goes on to attack what they believe about 9/11. So they must attempt to discredit every claim made in the movie. It's what they do. Someone should make a movie about how the world is round and then go on to attack 9/11 and wait for the reaction.

[fagin]

Interesting topic, then Jerome arrives.

[JimBenArm]

Because Zeitgeist goes on to attack what they believe about 9/11. So they must attempt to discredit every claim made in the movie. It's what they do. Someone should make a movie about how the world is round and then go on to attack 9/11 and wait for the reaction.
Well, yeah. Except for the world being round part, because they didn't even get that much right.
So, if you changed that to "world being flat" and we made fun of it for saying that, and the junk about 9/11 as well, then you'd just about have it right.

[JimBenArm]

Interesting topic, then Jerome arrives.
Well, if you just think of Jerome as the static on the radio, it's all cool.

[~enigma~]

i didnt like zeitgeist cause is was a lot of bull. about jesus, about 9-11, about a whole lot of things.
jesus? Oh yeah....he is the made up man/god that saved the cross at ground zero on 9/11 since it was apparently more important than the people who died during the collapse.

[~enigma~]

The whole "Z" thing is what bothers me. Words with "Z" are evil, and cause crop failure, dandruff and halitosis.
That's why I fear it.
I beg to differ. Zinc is our friend :)

[ElMondoHummus]

The whole "Z" thing is what bothers me. Words with "Z" are evil, and cause crop failure, dandruff and halitosis.
That's why I fear it.

I beg to differ. Zinc is our friend :)

Forgive him. He got ran over by a Zebra as a kid and hasn't been the same since.

[JimBenArm]

Ahhhh! Z words!

It burns!!!!!

[Drudgewire]

I'm not afraid of Zima per se, but I'm terrified of anyone I know catching me drinking one. :p

[Nick227]

Does the sun die (stagnant on the horizon) for three days and is reborn on December 25th?

:gnome:

Personally, I'd say there's astrotheological symbolism in the New Testament, no doubt about it. But it is not the core of the text. The case that Dorothy Murdock makes, which Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist sources almost exclusively in Part 1, is that astrotheology is the bulk of the NT; that Jesus never lived; and that the whole thing was made up by the evil Constantine and his cohorts at the Nicaean Council, to control the world.

The fundamental problem with this theory, as I see it, is that the bulk of the New Testament that relates to Jesus is not philosophical in nature. He is not articulating a solar mythos. Mostly it's an account of the life and teachings of Jesus - events, sayings, parables, questions, instructions to disciples - very little of this stuff can be construed as really philosophical in nature and certainly not solar mythology. He has some of the attributes of a solar deity, it's true, but mostly he's wandering around discussing, doing stuff, teaching people. When one starts to consider in particular texts like the Gospel of Thomas, big, hard-to-answer questions start to arise for the Jesus deniers. Who is this "living Jesus" referred to and who is apparently the source for this text? If this and other Gospels, particularly those written clearly by someone with a very deep mystical knowledge, didn't come from Jesus, then from where did they come?

The thing is, for me, that one needs to grasp at least a little of the sheer depth of some of the New Testament books and Gnostic material. With this, the whole Jesus-was-a-fiction argument does start to fall apart. DM Murdock clearly just does not understand the texts she writes about. She seems to start with a conclusion and then scour historical record for evidence which confirms it, ignoring anything which doesn't. Thus she creates books which appear convincing and well-sourced on the surface, but which don't survive any critical examination. I guess Peter Joseph read her books and just wanted to believe it was true. He never bothered to look deeper.

Nick

[CptColumbo]

Ahhhh! Z words!

It burns!!!!!
NI!!!

Take that.

[Nick227]

Does the sun die (stagnant on the horizon) for three days and is reborn on December 25th?

:gnome:

Then why does Jesus die and be reborn at Easter?

Nick

[Profanz]

Well, yeah. Except for the world being round part, because they didn't even get that much right.
So, if you changed that to "world being flat" and we made fun of it for saying that, and the junk about 9/11 as well, then you'd just about have it right.

No. The claims they make about Christianity are as dead on as pointing out the world is round. Unless you have a problem with the world being round that is. If that's the case I can't help you with your faith problem.

[~enigma~]

This video seems oddly fitting in this thread...

6219184384490389686&q

ETA - Can't seem to get the embebbeded link to play so...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6219184384490389686&q (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6219184384490389686&q=cross+at+the+wtc&ei=M3hSSNyeHZSO4wLk64i4DA)

[JimBenArm]

Then why does Jesus die and be reborn at Easter?

Nick
'Cause the Easter Bunny gave him colored eggs! Everyone knows that!

[Drudgewire]

Because Zeitgeist goes on to attack what they believe about 9/11. So they must attempt to discredit every claim made in the movie. It's what they do.

Yeah, skeptics looking for proof of a claim instead of just buying something a movie says. That's not what Randi does. The fact that "sun" and "son" don't sound anything alike in the languages they were speaking? Just disinfo by the religious fanatics that have overrun JREF.

Pseudo-skeptics is what they should call themselves. Or better yet, "jerks." :mad:

[JimBenArm]

No. The claims they make about Christianity are as dead on as pointing out the world is round. Unless you have a problem with the world being round that is. If that's the case I can't help you with your faith problem.

And I can't help you with your stupid and gullible problem, either.

[~enigma~]

Hey Jim...is your favorite music Zydego? If you want, we can ride down to Louisiana on zebraback and sit sipping a few Zimas while we listen to zydego. Sound like a plan?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then why does Jesus die and be reborn at Easter?

Nick

Pagan spring religion named after the God Istar.

The Romans incorporated all sorts of pagan religion and called it Christianity.

[Gazpacho]

[quote=JEROME DA GNOME;3773356]The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?/quote]
*sigh*

Let's take one well-known instance of Christian scripture that claims Jesus was the son of God: John 3:16.

John was written as early as 90 AD. You can assume it was written earlier if you want. In any case, most versions circulating were Greek.

Would you please explain why homophony between the modern English words "son" and "sun" would have ANY INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER on Greek scripture as early as 90 AD?

[~enigma~]

Many people on this forum are clearly hostile to "Zeitgeist the movie". I'm curious about the knee-jerk hostility to this video.

I'm an atheist, and I found nothing odd or controversial about it's debunking of Christianity. I've read any number of things along the same lines as the assertions made in Zeitgeist. The fact is that anyone who knows anything at all about the history of Christianity knows that the Christian religion is a cobbled together pile of nonsense (like most other religions!) and Christianity is such an ambiguous religion that it can be used to support pretty much any stance. I mean how can you have extreme left wingers and right wingers sharing the same religion and both finding justification for their diametrically opposed points of view? Last time I checked, I was completely unaware of any capitalist being a member of the communist party. That's because capitalism and communism both make their positions clear. Christianity fails utterly to achieve this. What irritated me about Part 1 of Zeitgeist was that it seemed to hint at some 'new' religion. If such a religion emerges in Part 2, I'm sure it will be as much of a joke as Christianity.

The part of Zeitgeist that dealt with 9/11 etc was intriguing. I wasn't persuaded by it, but I thought there were a few interesting points that could do with a bit more scrutiny, to clear the record if nothing else.

I had a lot of time for the section dealing with the banking system. For me, much of this was spot on, although I found the stuff about the North American Union quite comical. I don't see anything much wrong with the EU or the proposed NAU!

So, all in all, Zeitgeist was interesting and thought-provoking. You don't have to believe it to think that it raised some important issues. So, again, why the hostility towards it on this forum?

David Rothkopf is a respected academic and his book 'Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making' contains, albeit in much more sober and respectable terms, the same message as the bulk of conspiracy theories - that a small group of rich and powerful people have engineered a system that is massively distorted in their favour and incredibly weighted against those who are not part of the highest echelons of powers.

As far as I'm concerned, as much scrutiny as possible should be turned towards the 6,000 people that Rothkopf claims are the effective rulers of the world. Zeitgeist, for all of its smoke and mirrors, nevertheless achieves the important task of putting bankers in the spotlight (for the money men are obviously the key to a money-based hierarchy just as geniuses would be to an intelligence-based hierarchy and saintly people to a system based on good deeds towards others).

So instead of scoffing at Zeitgeist why aren't the skeptics on this forum being a bit more skeptical about the banking system, religion, democracy etc. Are the people on this forum just pointless debaters or are they actually trying to achieve something?

For my part, I think a world controlled by bankers, celebrities and crazy religions is ghastly and I would like to see something done about it. Zeitgeist mounts a creditable attack on these things; the skeptics on this site just endlessly (and smugly) carp and do nothing to change a thing.

Give me Zeitgeist any day over complacent skeptics.

Better still, why can't the skeptics put together something as interesting as Zeitgeist? Because they have no passion for anything perhaps, nothing that motivates them to get off their asses and try to make a difference? Is 'skeptic' another word for people who are doing very nicely, thank you very much, and don't wish to see the applecart being upset? Is 'debunking' merely an exercise in maintaining the status quo?

The one thing you never get from this forum is the impression that anyone is prepared to do anything other than scoff. And that's a tragedy given that there are a lot of smart people on this site who could make a big difference if they became activists. The conspiracy theorists may be crazy, but at least they try things. And much better a tryer than a scoffer!
I forgot to reply so...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1325748527f32e37ea.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12538)

[JimBenArm]

Hey Jim...is your favorite music Zydego? If you want, we can ride down to Louisiana on zebraback and sit sipping a few Zimas while we listen to zydego. Sound like a plan?
Have I told you today how much I hate you?:wackytwitcy:

[~enigma~]

[quote=JEROME DA GNOME;3773356]The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?/quote]
*sigh*

Let's take one well-known instance of Christian scripture that claims Jesus was the son of God: John 3:16.

John was written as early as 90 AD. You can assume it was written earlier if you want. In any case, most versions circulating were Greek.

Would you please explain why homophony between the modern English words "son" and "sun" would have ANY INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER on Greek scripture as early as 90 AD?Isn't the answer obvious? Man/god knew that there would be homophony in english so he carefully selected the words....either that or Jerome is wrong once again.

So Jerome. This pic's for you and all the entertaining you do.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_132574852800679ee0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12540)

[~enigma~]

Have I told you today how much I hate you?:wackytwitcy:
Not lately...

[GreNME]

Jerome, I am starting to think you're just trying to get a rise as opposed to arguing something you actually feel is factual. Shame on you.

Does the sun die (stagnant on the horizon) for three days and is reborn on December 25th?

Nope, not at all. As a matter of fact, the sun appears to stand still in the sky (hence the etymology of the word 'solstice') twice a year:

In June, typically around the 20th to the evening of the 21st
In December, typically around the 21st into the evening of the 22nd


Due to the calendar not being able to give us a fraction of a day (also resulting in leap years), there is sometimes a variance of between 12-16 hours to the beginning of the solstice. This means it can sometimes start earlier (but no more than a calendar day) or later (also no more than a calendar day). No suns dying on the 25th of December, I'm afraid. You fail on that one.

The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the Christian bible leaves out any specific implication. It was actually a point of contention with early biblical scholars, and is the reason why the Eastern Orthodoxy has a different date for the birth than Roman Catholicism (and most Protestantisms).

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?

It isn't, as I point out above both with the accurate dates of the solstices and the fact that not all of Christianity (even today) celebrates on the 25th of December. Again, you fail.

Uhh, we are agreeing and you do not get it because you are so caught up in being right.

You agree that sun worship IS what modern religion practices.

Speaking of "so caught up in being right" you seem to not even be starting from accurate points of reference and you have yet to respond to a single post where I've pointed out the mistakes in what you're saying (as well as the mistakes of the film). When the claims are looked at without misleading words (like 'son/sun' or the 'sun dying') and when historical understanding of the cultures, writings, and at least the basics of the various languages are applied the claims fall apart from lack of corroberating evidence.

----------

Because Zeitgeist goes on to attack what they believe about 9/11. So they must attempt to discredit every claim made in the movie. It's what they do. Someone should make a movie about how the world is round and then go on to attack 9/11 and wait for the reaction.

Do you really believe that circular logic or are you just making an outrageous claim for hyperbole's sake?

[Viper Daimao]

I'm scared that limposts->infinity (Nposts by BS/Nthreads started by BS) = 1.

sweet, I actually understood that. It's been awhile since calculus.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?
*sigh*

Let's take one well-known instance of Christian scripture that claims Jesus was the son of God: John 3:16.

John was written as early as 90 AD. You can assume it was written earlier if you want. In any case, most versions circulating were Greek.

Would you please explain why homophony between the modern English words "son" and "sun" would have ANY INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER on Greek scripture as early as 90 AD?


Sure, it is also just coincidence that we count Hours for the steps Horus takes across the sky chasing Set to the underworld when the sun sets.

:gnome:

[ElMondoHummus]

Have I told you today how much I hate you?:wackytwitcy:

Ohhhh, Zing!

:D

[CptColumbo]

The bible implies that Jesus was born in the spring.

Why is his birth celebrated today the same day the SUN is resurrected?
*sigh*

Let's take one well-known instance of Christian scripture that claims Jesus was the son of God: John 3:16.

John was written as early as 90 AD. You can assume it was written earlier if you want. In any case, most versions circulating were Greek.

Would you please explain why homophony between the modern English words "son" and "sun" would have ANY INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER on Greek scripture as early as 90 AD?
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Son of God: Γιος του Θεού (ho huios tou theou)
Sun of God: Ήλιος του Θεού

Mark is the book (the earliest known written of the synoptic Gospels) that probably makes the most references to him as the "Son of God" and "the Son of God."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

John was written as early as 90 AD. You can assume it was written earlier if you want. In any case, most versions circulating were Greek.

Would you please explain why homophony between the modern English words "son" and "sun" would have ANY INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER on Greek scripture as early as 90 AD?

son = γιος
gios


sun = ήλιος
ilios

[Drudgewire]

So Jerome. This pic's for you and all the entertaining you do.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_132574852800679ee0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12540)



http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hascheez.jpg

[~enigma~]

son = γιος
gios


sun = ήλιος
ilios
Good answer but it wasn't to the question that was asked. Next time please try to remember that we don't want anyone here hurt so moving goalposts is a TEAM LIFT.

[Profanz]

And I can't help you with your stupid and gullible problem, either.

Stupid and gullible? How long did you have faith in Santa and sing jingle bells before you switched over to Jesus, the Hail Mary, and the Pledge of Allegiance? Are you naughty or nice?

[GreNME]

Sure, it is also just coincidence that we count Hours for the steps Horus takes across the sky chasing Set to the underworld when the sun sets.

Not a coincidence at all, because that's not where the word hour (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hour) comes from. The Egyptian name for Horus is Heru, meaning "distant one" or "one from above" in translation. Nothing to do with the counting of minutes. Your exhibition of poor understanding of things you claim to know about grows with each post.

son = γιος
gios


sun = ήλιος
ilios

Like I already pointed out, the only way those seem similar is if you don't understand the differences in pronounciation. They aren't homophones and are quite distinguishable from each other in ancient Greek literature.

Shall we examine the extant Greek versions of the gospels to show how incorrect you are? Matthew (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/Matthew.html), Mark (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/Mark.html), Luke (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/Luke.html), and John (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/John.html) for reference.

[Drudgewire]

Stupid and gullible? How long did you have faith in Santa and sing jingle bells before you switched over to Jesus, the Hail Mary, and the Pledge of Allegiance? Are you naughty or nice?

Scratch that. Stupid, gullible, and really, really bad at comebacks.

It's the third one which gets you sent to the ignore list. Goodbye.

[JimBenArm]

Stupid and gullible? How long did you have faith in Santa and sing jingle bells before you switched over to Jesus, the Hail Mary, and the Pledge of Allegiance? Are you naughty or nice?
I'm definitely naughty. Just ask my wife.
As far as all those fantasies go, I didn't exchange one for the other. I managed to outgrow them all. Except for the Hail Mary. Works on occasion, if the receiver can outjump the DB, and come down with the ball. And the Pledge of Allegiance does actually exist, BTW. Just sayin'.
Now, care to start posting things that actually make a lick of sense, or shall we stop this?

[Nick227]

Pagan spring religion named after the God Istar.

The Romans incorporated all sorts of pagan religion and called it Christianity.

If the winter solstice symbolises death and rebirth, why doesn't Jesus die and be reborn then, instead of at Easter? This would seem to me a fairly major inconsistency if Jesus is actually a solar messiah.

Nick

[Profanz]

I'm definitely naughty. Just ask my wife.
As far as all those fantasies go, I didn't exchange one for the other. I managed to outgrow them all. Except for the Hail Mary. Works on occasion, if the receiver can outjump the DB, and come down with the ball. And the Pledge of Allegiance does actually exist, BTW. Just sayin'.
Now, care to start posting things that actually make a lick of sense, or shall we stop this?


What doesn't make sense? Now I didn't watch any other part of Zeitgeist except the religion part. But I do get that believing in something based on faith ,allegence, and lack of all the available information applies across the board there. And yes it apllies to conspiracy theories as well if one subscribes to any. So far the official line on 9/11 is nothing more then that. Just another conspiracy with not a whole lot of information.

[CptColumbo]

If the winter solstice symbolises death and rebirth, why doesn't Jesus die and be reborn then, instead of at Easter? This would seem to me a fairly major inconsistency if Jesus is actually a solar messiah.

Nick

IIRC it is (symbolically) set around the time of Passover (the time varies in the different books of the Gospel). So, Jesus is the lamb of God, being sacrificed for our sins.

[~enigma~]

IIRC it is (symbolically) set around the time of Passover (the time varies in the different books of the Gospel). So, Jesus is the lamb of God, being sacrificed for our sins.
Which to be consistent with the story in the manbook would be more apt to be during the holiday of Sukkot. Actually, carefully reading through the entire manbook will show the date as Sukkot or 6 months opposite. Funny how most (if not all) christians miss that. BTW, this post does not in any way shape or form mean I buy into the jesus myth.

[Nick227]

IIRC it is (symbolically) set around the time of Passover (the time varies in the different books of the Gospel). So, Jesus is the lamb of God, being sacrificed for our sins.

But, to take the case put out in Zeitgeist - that Jesus is an artificially constructed solar messiah - then would it not be that his death and resurrection should occur at the winter solstice? In the solar year, surely this would be the correct period to place it in.

Am I missing something here?

Nick

[CptColumbo]

Keep in mind that the synoptic Gospels were not written until around 60 CE. Try writing a book about Lyndon Johnson and rely entirely on anecdotal accounts. How accurate do you think it would be?

I audited a lecture series on the history of the New Testement when I was in college and learned a lot of interesting facts and theories about the Gospels.

[Nick227]

You guys are really arguing that the ancients did not worship the Sun.

:dl:


Just out of interest here's a quote from one of the guys many CTists rely on to affirm their Jesus-was-the-sun ideas, Manly P. Hall...

"So the ancients considered the sun as the principle symbol of deity. No ancient person of wisdom or insight ever thought of the sun as that being, but rather the mirror of it." Manly P. Hall, The Solar Christmas (Part 1, approx 16:00, emphasis Manly's)

Nick

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.

[CptColumbo]

I find it amusing when someone has no real idea what they are writing about, because they learned all about it from one source and can't really expand on it since they never did any independent research of their own. So he/she never really learned anything.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.


Why?

[X]

Since there seems to be some raging argument over the sun-god-ness of the monotheistic Abrahamic god, I'm going to make one comment:


Tying Yahweh to primitive sun-worship is like saying humanity came from prokaryotes.


It is absurdly simplistic, and largely ignores the evolution of the Abrahamic god.
Christianity itself is only subset in the bigger history of the development of the Abrahamic strain of monotheism.

If you are interested in the subject, read "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong.
Also good is "The Great Transformation".



But if you don't care enoug to run out, buy and read a book on the subject, then you can get away with reading the following line:
The claims Zeitgeist makes about the origin of Christianity and its god are WRONG.

Almost every last one of them.

[Gazpacho]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.
As always, I don't need to prove my "atheist cred" to anyone. Some who do, rally around Zeitgeist.

I admit I've never studied Greek, but isn't -ios a case ending and thus insignificant when it comes to telling one noun from another?

[Nick227]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.

I think it would be amusing to someone who resides in the belief that they always know it better. Is this your belief?

Nick

[CptColumbo]

He's also assuming that that everyone here is an Athiest.

[fullflavormenthol]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.
Not so much defending anything other than integrity. I don't believe what the Christians believe, but that shouldn't be used as an excuss to spread nonsense at the expense of an actual understanding of history. My disagreements with a religious faith is no reason for me to belittle its cultural history, and the cultural history of the Egyptians. Hell it is just bad everything in general that makes me dislike Zeitgeist.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't believe what the Christians believe, but that shouldn't be used as an excuss to spread nonsense at the expense of an actual understanding of history.


...or an excuse to let others spread that nonsense.

Apparently JDG feels that truth and accuracy are only worth defending if you happen to agree with the subject matter.

It's like when an idiot claims that Hitler was into the occult, and someone who is not a supporter of Hitler or the Nazis corrects them. How is that possibly amusing?

[Elizabeth I]

As always, I don't need to prove my "atheist cred" to anyone. Some who do, rally around Zeitgeist.

I admit I've never studied Greek, but isn't -ios a case ending and thus insignificant when it comes to telling one noun from another?

Reaching back into the dim mists of time and my classical Greek classes, "-os" is the nominative ending for a masculine-gender noun; "-a" the ending for a feminine-gender noun, and "-on" the ending for a neuter-gender noun. This pattern was repeated in large part in Latin as "-us," "-a" and "-um".

So what this means is that in Greek both "sun" and "son" are masculine nouns. Big whoop.

And while we're at it let's take a look at "sun" and "son" in Spanish:

sun - sol

son - hijo; or
[boy] child - niño

So much for the homonym theory.

[Myriad]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.


I rather suspect that there are plenty of skeptics (atheist and otherwise) who would be doubtful of the claim that the character of Mr. Spock was based on Peter Pan, without implying any belief that either of them actually exist.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[1337m4n]

No. The claims they make about Christianity are as dead on as pointing out the world is round. Unless you have a problem with the world being round that is. If that's the case I can't help you with your faith problem.

Uhh, Profanz, you do realize that the vast majority of the skeptics on this board are Atheists, right?

You DO understand that? Please tell me you knew that.

[1337m4n]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.

It is amusing watching brain-dead dolts equate the refutation of deliberate false information in Zeitgeist with "defending" anything other than historical accuracy. You misuse the definition of "skeptic"; a skeptic is not someone who believes everything he hears that agrees with his preconceived notions. A skeptic is someone who takes everything he hears and decides whether it is true or not regardless of any other considerations.

Would you have us believe Zeitgeist unquestioningly just because we aren't Christians?

[JimBenArm]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.
Hmm. Must have missed that post where I stated what my beliefs or nonbeliefs were. Gotta go back and see, so I know what they are...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Uhh, Profanz, you do realize that the vast majority of the skeptics on this board are Atheists, right?

You DO understand that? Please tell me you knew that.

Hmm. Must have missed that post where I stated what my beliefs or nonbeliefs were. Gotta go back and see, so I know what they are...

:gnome:

[fullflavormenthol]

:gnome:
You do realize that 1337m4n and JimBenArm are not the same person, hence your post doesn't serve the purpose for which you are trying to use it. It doesn't show any contradiction, because Jim wrote "where I stated..." not where someone else stated.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You do realize that 1337m4n and JimBenArm are not the same person, hence your post doesn't serve the purpose for which you are trying to use it. It doesn't show any contradiction, because Jim wrote "where I stated..." not where someone else stated.

In the same manner that his post had no relation to what he quoted me saying.


Follow the bouncing ball. :)

[fullflavormenthol]

In the same manner that his post had no relation to what he quoted me saying.


Follow the bouncing ball. :)
He was responding to your ignorant generalized statement. If you didn't want to direct it at everyone here, and you should have directed it at a specific person.

Look at the shinny keys Jerome... :rolleyes:

[Slayhamlet]

son = γιος
gios


sun = ήλιος
ilios

γιος is strictly Modern Greek; υἱὸς is the Ancient and Koine Greek word for 'son'. ἥλιος ["son"] is pronounced in Ancient Greek (including Koine) approximately like HEY-lee-oss.

Needless to say, Zeitgeist is garbage.

[GreNME]

In the same manner that his post had no relation to what he quoted me saying.


Follow the bouncing ball. :)

The problem, JDG, is that you're intentionally shooting out arguments you know are flawed in order to incite. I'd only suspected it early on, but the point is that after a few pages of the same stuff you're now attempting some kind of "gotcha" point with your posts, which you're well aware is only going to incite more.

You're plucking people's strings-- that I'll give you-- but you're doing so in a manner that's a bit obvious and you're walking a fine line. I would really rather you not cross the line that could get you moderated for what seems like you just having a bit of fun at the expense of others' frustration.

I disagree with you on a number of topics, but I don't think of you as a bad person. I'd rather you stick around and continue to engage others as opposed to risking getting yourself in trouble for inciting insult fights.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I disagree with you on a number of topics, but I don't think of you as a bad person.

Ask him about the Holocaust.

Then ask him to provide evidence.

[leftysergeant]

I am not an atheist. I believe in one God, without equal, universal in His presence, moral in His character, benevolent toward His creation. His ways are a bit murky to us, but are discoverable through proper study of the creation.

But don't assign me to any cult. Of all faiths, I am probably most in agreement with the Baha'i Faith. I must, by that standard, give due honor to all the Abrahamic faiths, and to some extent, even top Pagan and primitive faiths such as Animism, to the extent that they were given to men of limited understanding and knowledge.

That being said, my objection to Zeitgeist is not a result of feeling that it is a direct attack on me or my faith. I belong to no community of faith, but commune as well and as cordially as I can with all.

I find Zeitgeist objectionable because it intends to tear down the vierwer's religious beliefs, to show him that his entire spiritual life up to that pint has been a sick and sad joke, that he has no hope for redemption on the next plane of existance.

It is meant to leave the viewer, for a time, lost and drifting without a life line.

Enter the mesistopholean producers of Zeitgeist:

You need to find some place where your roots can re-attach themselves before you wither in the airless, waterless void.

Psst! Over here. You need to take what you can from life, because there is nothing else. But before you can do that, we must join together to fight a common enemy who is keeping us from achieving anything.

Help us put down the oppressors and the gates to an earthly paradise will open to you.

You know who the oppressors are already. It's those bankers. They are saddling you with a life-long burden of debt by usury, keeping you from ever breaking free.

(BTW, did you notice that they are all part of the same chthonic religious cult?)

Let's go get the bastards.

You seem hesitant. Do you not see how evil they are?

Look what they did on 9/11. Look what the rotten bastards did to their own people.

Come now brother, and take up arms in the glorious RaHoWa....er...War of Liberation.

Exit Mephisto and the useful idiot. ~

That is why I despise everyone connected with Zeitgeist.

If there is a hell, may they all rot therein, and soon.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ask him about the Holocaust.

Then ask him to provide evidence.

The Germans killed 4 million Jews, not 6 million.

...and I have provided evidence of such.

[~enigma~]

The Germans killed 4 million Jews, not 6 million.

...and I have provided evidence of such.
So your a holocaust denier and an anti-semitie. Enjoy your stay on ignore. I know I will...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So your a holocaust denier and an anti-semitie. Enjoy your stay on ignore. I know I will...

:dl:

[CptColumbo]

:dl:So, you find the Holocaust funny?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So, you find the Holocaust funny?


He finds the defense of historical accuracy amusing, so it's only natural...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Germans killed 4 million Jews, not 6 million.

...and I have provided evidence of such.

You are soooo stundied.

[~enigma~]

You are soooo stundied.
You forgot disgusting...

[leftysergeant]

The Germans killed 4 million Jews, not 6 million.

...and I have provided evidence of such.

Actually, you haven't. You have not accounted for the numbers killed fleeing the Einsatzgruppen.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, you haven't. You have not accounted for the numbers killed fleeing the Einsatzgruppen.

You have previously accepted the 4 million number. You expressed concern that talking about the exact number could defuse the vitriol.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, you find the Holocaust funny?

I find your weak attempt to move off-topic...:dl:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Horus=hours (12 steps=12 hours in a day)

Set=sunset


:crowded:

[Rika]

oooh, look, it's english anagrams that don't neccesarily exist in other langauges!

[David Wong]

Jerome's on a personal mission to make the forums worse, plain and simple. He's trying to create and/or bump as many bad threads as possible. He doesn't believe any of what he's saying, he's specifically picking the most ridiculous and outrageous position on every topic and spamming it endlessly.

He's doing it out of some beef he has with the forum, and it's baffling to me why people keep letting him do it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome's on a personal mission to make the forums worse, plain and simple. He's trying to create and/or bump as many bad threads as possible. He doesn't believe any of what he's saying, he's specifically picking the most ridiculous and outrageous position on every topic and spamming it endlessly.

He's doing it out of some beef he has with the forum, and it's baffling to me why people keep letting him do it.


Do you have evidence of your off-topic accusations?


Please stay on topic.


What are your thoughts on Horus and hours?

[GreNME]

Jerome's on a personal mission to make the forums worse, plain and simple. He's trying to create and/or bump as many bad threads as possible. He doesn't believe any of what he's saying, he's specifically picking the most ridiculous and outrageous position on every topic and spamming it endlessly.

He's doing it out of some beef he has with the forum, and it's baffling to me why people keep letting him do it.

Well, I was offering him a way to save face instead of continuing to push buttons. However, if he keeps it up we could always just report or ignore him.

[Hokulele]

Well, I was offering him a way to save face instead of continuing to push buttons.


"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."

However, if he keeps it up we could always just report or ignore him.


Sit back and laugh is always an option as well.

BTW, how is your Zeitgeist wiki coming?

[fullflavormenthol]

Horus=hours (12 steps=12 hours in a day)

Set=sunset


:crowded:
Go ahead and provide the evidence of the origin of the word hour from Horus, because you can't. The origin of the word is only traceable down to ὥρα, unless you found another source you would like share with rest of the group?

Oh..and sunset has nothing to do with Seth. The English word set comes from the old English Settan, which is related to the Dutch zettan and the Germanic setzen.

[GreNME]

"You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din."

Meh. You should talk to other people who know me.

BTW, how is your Zeitgeist wiki coming?

Slow. I need to work on it some more and get some of the features on it working properly.

[Hokulele]

Meh. You should talk to other people who know me.


You mean such as Dave31? ;)

Slow. I need to work on it some more and get some of the features on it working properly.


Understandable. Keep me posted as it will probably be a great resource for threads like this.

[CptColumbo]

I find your weak attempt to move off-topic...:dl:Since you seem to be ignoring all the posts that are on topic, is it so surprising. It's pathetic that you find the death of millions of people (4 million by your estimation, but over 6 million according to reality) to be amusing.

[Silentknight]

I think fuelair summed up in a different thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114501) what I feel like saying in this one:
However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with noting that anti-semites pick their noses and eat what they find, devour each others feces voraciously and could not come up with an IQ of 50 if all their's were added together and multiplied by a factor of 1000 or so. I have also been informed by reliable sources that they enjoy molesting children as a change from whacking off two or three times a day.

As for evidence that this is so, well I've at least matched the amount of evidence provided that the Germans killed 4 million Jews rather than 6 million.

ETA: Regarding the OP. Yes I'm an atheist who disagrees with Christianity on a great many things, but no, I'm NOT going to make stuff up or instinctively cling to any ridiculous argument just because it attacks Christianity. Similarly, I despise president Bush and think he's the worst president ever, but that does NOT mean I make stuff up about his involvement in 9/11 or run straight to ridiculous conspiracy theories just because they attack Bush.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Go ahead and provide the evidence of the origin of the word hour from Horus, because you can't. The origin of the word is only traceable down to ὥρα, unless you found another source you would like share with rest of the group?

Oh..and sunset has nothing to do with Seth. The English word set comes from the old English Settan, which is related to the Dutch zettan and the Germanic setzen.



O.K. :cool:


It is all just a 6000 year old coincidence.


Yea, that is believable. :rolleyes:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, I was offering him a way to save face instead of continuing to push buttons. However, if he keeps it up we could always just report or ignore him.

REPORTED

Off-topic personal attack.







Can you not see how silly you read?

[GreNME]

And you have yet to address my multiple attempts to actually exchange with you over more than three pages.

Have fun with your games, Jerome. If you're not here to converse then you're just here pushing buttons or preaching, neither of which is permitted by the membership agreement.

I hate to say it, but welcome to ignore, Jerome.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And you have yet to address my multiple attempts to actually exchange with you over more than three pages.

Have fun with your games, Jerome. If you're not here to converse then you're just here pushing buttons or preaching, neither of which is permitted by the membership agreement.

I hate to say it, but welcome to ignore, Jerome.

No, you have been accusing me of inciting when I attempt to stay on-topic.


Try staying on-topic.


What do you think about Horus and Hours?

[parky76]

O.K. :cool:


It is all just a 6000 year old coincidence.


Yea, that is believable. :rolleyes:

Do you think the English word "Sun" and "son" are the same thing...as suggested in Zeitgeist?

[fullflavormenthol]

O.K. :cool:


It is all just a 6000 year old coincidence.


Yea, that is believable. :rolleyes:
Um...yeah. There are only so many sounds producable by humans, and so there will be similiar sounding words that have no relation to each other. Set is also a river in Spain...not related to Seth. Set is also a root in the Sanskrit langauge...again not related to Seth.

So yeah there are coincidences in linguistics Jerome, thumbing through a dictionary would clue you into that.:rolleyes:

[parky76]

It is amusing watching atheist skeptics defend Christian thinking.

We aren't defending Christian thinking....we are responding to baseless lies about a faith.

I am no Muslim and I never plan on becoming one, but I will defend Islam against lies and insults.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So yeah there are coincidences in linguistics Jerome, thumbing through a dictionary would clue you into that. :rollseyes:

Linguistics build upon themselves. You are ignoring that language follows history. They are intertwined.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

We aren't defending Christian thinking....we are responding to baseless lies about a faith.

I am no Muslim and I never plan on becoming one, but I will defend Islam against lies and insults.


The Jews are also Sun worshipers. So what?

[thesyntaxera]

I hate to say it, but welcome to ignore, Jerome.

Ditto.

[fullflavormenthol]

Linguistics build upon themselves. You are ignoring that language follows history. They are intertwined.
Fine Jerome, than you should be able to show the eytomology of the word hour. Unfortunately for your argument there is no linkage between the English words of set and hour with Horus and Seth. Sorry, but those aren't intertwined. Trolling it up with things that are self-debunking? Jerome you dissappoint.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Jews are also Sun worshipers. So what?

You are nearly as unqualified to discuss judaism and its adherents as MaGZ is.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fine Jerome, than you should be able to show the eytomology of the word hour. Unfortunately for your argument there is no linkage between the English words of set and hour with Horus and Seth. Sorry, but those aren't intertwined. Trolling it up with things that are self-debunking? Jerome you dissappoint.

SUN: sunnon (cf. O.N., O.S., O.H.G. sunna, M.Du. sonne, Du. zon, Ger. Sonne, Goth. sunno


SON: sunuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. sunu, O.N. sonr, Dan. søn, Swed. son, M.Du. sone, Du. zoon, O.H.G. sunu, Ger. Sohn, Goth. sunus "son"), from PIE *sunu-/*sunyu- (cf. Skt. sunus, Gk. huios, Avestan hunush, Armenian ustr, Lith. sunus, O.C.S. synu, Rus., Pol. syn "son"

[fullflavormenthol]

SUN: sunnon (cf. O.N., O.S., O.H.G. sunna, M.Du. sonne, Du. zon, Ger. Sonne, Goth. sunno


SON: sunuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. sunu, O.N. sonr, Dan. søn, Swed. son, M.Du. sone, Du. zoon, O.H.G. sunu, Ger. Sohn, Goth. sunus "son"), from PIE *sunu-/*sunyu- (cf. Skt. sunus, Gk. huios, Avestan hunush, Armenian ustr, Lith. sunus, O.C.S. synu, Rus., Pol. syn "son"
Wow, and this has to do with the etymology of hour and set how? Or how does this go to prove that son/sun are homonyms in other languages? If anything your little display actually disproves what you are going for. Unless you are finally agreeing that Zeitgeist is crap.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wow, and this has to do with the etymology of hour and set how? Or how does this go to prove that son/sun are homonyms in other languages? If anything your little display actually disproves what you are going for. Unless you are finally agreeing that Zeitgeist is crap.

Of course. These English words has no relation to the ancient words.

:covereyes

[fullflavormenthol]

Of course. These English words has no relation to the ancient words.

:covereyes
Well obviously not set and Seth or hour and Horus, at least not from anything you or anyone else seems to provide. Oh, and HOW DOES THAT SHOW THAT SON/SUN HOMONYMS EXIST IN THE GREEK?

Right now you are purposely playing games, and if you aren't going to seriously debate this than I am just going to join the group and ignore you.

[GreNME]

Wow, and this has to do with the etymology of hour and set how? Or how does this go to prove that son/sun are homonyms in other languages? If anything your little display actually disproves what you are going for. Unless you are finally agreeing that Zeitgeist is crap.

Just point him to this link explaining chance resemblances in languages (http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm). Coincidence? It's more likely than you think. In fact, the higher the number of phonetic sounds, words in the lexicon, and variety of usage can increase the likelihood greatly.

ETA: And everyone, please keep in mind that the name we call "Horus" in English is actually "Heru" in Egyptian.

[TheDaver]

Why are you so scared of Zeitgeist?
Why do you eat babies?

[JimBenArm]

Jerome may be on to something. Pi is used to determine the circumference of a circle. Pie is round. Eating pie increases your circumference. Therefore, obviously Pi is derived by eating pie.

Pi = pie!

I'll take apple!

[Nick227]

O.K. :cool:


It is all just a 6000 year old coincidence.


Yea, that is believable. :rolleyes:

Jerome, do you have any clue just how many words are randomly associated from languages with no known trace of contact? Surprisingly a lot as various researchers have found out. GreNME will happily supply you with some links if you ask him, or they are available around half-way through the original Zeitgeist thread.

That the word "Horus" is similar to the Greek source of "hour" is just not a big deal.

Personally, I'm quite into mystical stuff and I don't have so much a problem with Zeitgeist saying that there's a lot of astrotheology in Christian symbolism. I'm cool with it. But the presence of astrotheological symbolism does not mean that Jesus didn't live. There have been people claiming that Jesus didn't live for years, and astrotheology has not so much to do with it, one way or the other. It has a bit to do with it, but it is not the main issue.

Zeitgeist Pt 1 is just a heap of ill-concocted babble lifted from the work of primarily one person, a person who refuses to debate the actual issues despite numerous invitations.

Nick

[Nick227]

SUN: sunnon (cf. O.N., O.S., O.H.G. sunna, M.Du. sonne, Du. zon, Ger. Sonne, Goth. sunno


SON: sunuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. sunu, O.N. sonr, Dan. søn, Swed. son, M.Du. sone, Du. zoon, O.H.G. sunu, Ger. Sohn, Goth. sunus "son"), from PIE *sunu-/*sunyu- (cf. Skt. sunus, Gk. huios, Avestan hunush, Armenian ustr, Lith. sunus, O.C.S. synu, Rus., Pol. syn "son"

But what if Sun does = Son; Horus is Hours and Set is Set? So what? Just what exactly is any of this supposed to prove?

Are you saying that Jesus was a fiction and the Nicaean Council an evil plot to defraud humanity because the word Sun is related to Son? The majority of the New Testament which relates to Jesus is self-evidently not astrotheological, this is patently obvious, and the texts which were excluded from the canonical New Testament were already targeted by the emerging orthodox Christians nearly a century and a half before Nicaea. I can't really see what the discussion is about. So, say Hours comes from Horus, precisely what is this supposed to prove?

Nick

[Slayhamlet]

SUN: sunnon (cf. O.N., O.S., O.H.G. sunna, M.Du. sonne, Du. zon, Ger. Sonne, Goth. sunno


SON: sunuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. sunu, O.N. sonr, Dan. søn, Swed. son, M.Du. sone, Du. zoon, O.H.G. sunu, Ger. Sohn, Goth. sunus "son"), from PIE *sunu-/*sunyu- (cf. Skt. sunus, Gk. huios, Avestan hunush, Armenian ustr, Lith. sunus, O.C.S. synu, Rus., Pol. syn "son"

Wow! Look at all those languages, all very closely related to English (Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old High German, Modern High German, Middle Dutch, Modern Dutch, and Gothic), in which the words for "son" and "sun" aren't homophones. Old Frisian, Danish, and Swedish also lack homophones for those two words, though your cut 'n' paste doesn't show it. Why, even in the direct descendant of Modern English, Old English (also known as Anglo-Saxon), the word for "son" sunu and "sun" sunne are not homophones. In fact, in no Germanic Indo-European language at all besides English are the words for "son" and "sun" homophones. Amazing!

[Elizabeth I]

Wow, two major trolls in the same thread.

>>yawn<<

[Gazpacho]

So the theory so far is:


Someone from the Germanic areas of Europe developed core doctrines of Christianity
using detailed knowledge of the Middle East and Judaism (even though there is little evidence of the Germanic peoples being big on scholarship or writing things down at the time)
managed to spread them among vulgar sun-worshippers in the eastern Roman Empire, in languages that do not reflect the sun-worship connection
never managed to spread them among Germanic peoples where the sun-worship connection is more apparent, leaving those peoples to be converted by the Romans sometime around the 4th century
left no specific trace of their involvement in scripture, leaving us to assume their involvement and then grasp at linguistic straws to prove it, much like Shakespeare revisionists.

Fascinating, fascinating. I look forward to the journal article.

(The insistence on believing such poppycock, I suppose, is why people "fear" Zeitgeist.)