The world's greatest Custom Robo community!
HomeFAQRegisterLog in

Share | 

 Something no one is actually going to read.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 


PostSubject: Something no one is actually going to read.   19/9/2011, 23:31


So, I said a while ago I was going to do a writeup on evolution; it ended up including abiogenesis, big bang, and, since Rug brought it up, the Zeitgeist documents, otherwise known as the Esoteric Agenda, or New World Order theory.

So, here we go....

The Zeitgeist Documents

Before I say anything here, it should be noted that none of this is actually science; it's called spirit science by some, but I consider it to be assumptions based on patterns, based on more assumptions.

There's nothing wrong with recognition of patterns, but the problem comes in when it's not backed up by scientific, empirical evidence. A hypothesis is formed by observing patterns or other phenomena, and then tested; with spirit science, it doesn't work that way.

Instead of using the scientific method, they use a system similar to this:

-see a pattern or other similarity in something-
-create theories or assumptions from what you saw-
-search for other similarities to support said theory-

Someone compared pointing out flaws in the Zeitgeist to 'shooting fish in a barrel'. I kind of agree with that, but because of the nature of the entire theory, it's actually, for the most part, impossible to prove wrong.

It's like when a kid says that the sky is blue because the grass is green; it's an obvious non sequitur, but logical empiricism isn't going to change the kid's opinion, because his opinion was never based in fact anyway; it was based on what he decided to believe.

That's the problem that is most likely going to be prevalent when I write this, but bear with me.

(another note: some of this is taken from someone else's essay on it; the parts not my own words will be italicized, and the words from the Zeitgeist will be bolded.)

This is the sun. As far back as 10 thousand BC., history is abundant with carvings and writings reflecting peoples respect and adoration for this object. And it is simple to understand why as every morning the sun would rise, bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night. Without it, the cultures understood, the crops would not grow, and life on the planet would not survive. These realities made the sun the most adorned object of all time. Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars. The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn catalogued celestial groups into what we know today as constellations.

Nothing very exciting yet, but I want to point out what I mentioned earlier: It's already using analogies and tribal sayings to try to make the argument sound somehow valid, which is why it sound so plausible.

Allow to point a few things out right here...:

1.) '...history is abundant with carvings and writings reflecting peoples respect and adoration for this object.'

...okay. So what does that have to do with anything? I know what the sun is, I know it's bright, I know it's hot. So why are you telling me all this?

I used to know a girl who's 'respect and adoration' for lizards was....oddly strong, to say the least. But that doesn't make lizards any greater than they actually are. It just means someone likes them, for whatever reason.

2.) '...bringing vision, warmth, and security, saving man from the cold, blind, predator-filled darkness of night.'

It's starting to sound like the creepy pasta 'Genetic Memory' now. Peter Joseph, are you sure this is actually your own work?

3.) 'These realities made the sun the most adorned object of all time.'

Complete overstatement, and also miscategorization, but I'll let it slide.

4.) 'Likewise, they were also very aware of the stars. The tracking of the stars allowed them to recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long periods of time, such as eclipses and full moons. They in turn catalogued celestial groups into what we know today as constellations.'

He claims that they "catalogued celestial groups", while this is true for some civilizations, others such as the Inca, actually categorized the dark spots, not the stars themselves.-Edward Winston

Moving on to the Zodiac, something that a good amount of this thing hinges on.

This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.

In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. The sun, with its life-giving and -saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god. It was known as "God's Sun," the light of the world, the savior of human kind. Likewise, the 12 constellations represented places of travel for God's Sun and were identified by names, usually representing elements of nature that happened during that period of time. For example, Aquarius, the water bearer, who brings the Spring rains.

*Sylar=crushed by wall of text*

I think that's what some people try to do; write massive amounts to confuse people into believing what they say. Big words+long essays=/=intelligence. Always read between the lines.

I'm going to split this up again, because that's just awful to look at.

1.) 'This is the cross of the Zodiac, one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the 12 major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the 12 months of the year, the 4 seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes . The term Zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified, as figures, or animals.'

First, I'm going to post some of what Edward says...:

While the zodiac's exact origins are unknown, the oldest known zodiacs do not have exactly 12 signs and thus conclusions drawn to this cannot be trusted.

The most important thing to get out of this is what he says at the end: "...conclusions drawn from this cannot be trusted." He's exactly right; improper data gives improper results, so right now I could just discard everything else Joseph says on those ground alone, but I won't.

In fact there are actually 13 constellations the sun passes through, the missing one is Ophiuchus, which is not counted by modern astrologers, for some reason.

Again, interesting. It's interesting because Joseph bases his assumptions on things from older civilizations (why, I don't know. It's like he thinks they had more knowledge of everything than we did, which doesn't really make any sense if you think about it.) rather than newer developments in science. I don't feel like researching why the last constellation has been discarded by modern science, because it's imply not relevant to the argument at hand.

In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving their movements and relationships. The sun, with its life-giving and -saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god. It was known as "God's Sun," the light of the world, the savior of human kind.

The sun was not the creator god in all cultures, but rather only a few. While the sun was widely worshipped, more often than not, most religions believed the earth was given birth to (along side the sun and moon) by a different god, or even in one case the Earth is the back of a giant turtle. This is hardly something that can be seen through most religions, and is a bit of a stretch.

To paraphrase Edward: The sun wasn't the god in most religions. That's the point he's making here; that, again, what Joseph is saying is just...wrong. Nothing else to it, it's not even a wrong conclusion. It's just all around wrong.

1.) 'It was known as "God's Sun", the light or the world, the savior of human kind.'

Can you see what he's setting up yet? What he's basically doing is setting this up to make a comparison to Jesus Christ.

The problem with that is that no culture ever made that comparison with the sun. NONE OF THEM DID. All it is, is a comparison that JOSEPH himself is making, to support his view. Remember what I said about how they tried to prove their theories? ' for other similarities to support said theory.' He's trying to stretch a paraphrase of early culture farther than it can actually go, simply to support his theory.

2.) 'And something else further makes little sense here, if the sun itself is God and the creator, why would they refer to it as "God's Sun", implying that the sun is not the God? Also as I mention at the bottom of this article, there was a a segment cut out that said "God's Sun = God's Son", and this is also inaccurate, because they are similar only in English -- and the bible was not written in English. I feel like this part is still a setup because it is still implying that God's Sun is the same as God's Son, even though the connection is impossible.

A very good point by Edward; if Joseph already said that the sun represents God Himself, then why is he now making the comparison to Jesus? I guess he could say because of the Trinity, but anyone who has studied the Trinity can prove that wrong.

He also points out how Joseph tried to use the similarity between 'sun' and 'son' as proof. Okay, Mr. Joseph, does that mean that 'read' (present tense) and 'read' (past tense) are the same because they sound the same? Hell, my comparisons are even SPELLED the same.

With that aside, Edward also point out that the Bible was not written in English, and that's the only launguage they're similar in. English wasn't present in any of the cultures Joseph bases his arguments on, so he actually invalidates his argument himself.

This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC. He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun's movement in the sky. From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night. And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set - while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that "dark vs. light" or "good vs. evil" is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.

Wall of text again.

I find it interesting how he says 'metaphorically speaking'. Well, no *** Sherlock, because it's not like everything you argue here is metaphorical. /sarcasm

At this time, he was the god of the sky, and Ra was the god of the sun. Perhaps inevitable, since he was the sky, eventually the moon and the sun were considered his eyes. At this point he was known as Heru-khuti, and by-and-by he was combined with Ra as the god "Re-Horakhty"[13][11]. While there was a battle between Set and Horus, it was hardly every night. In fact, the battle really only happened once, and had more to do with testicles and semen than night and day.

Amazing how these ancient battles are always about weird stuff, isn't it?

What he's saying here isn't to refute what Joseph says, but rather to point out flaws in the things he's talking about, so don't read to much into it.

Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born savior. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected..

'Broadly speaking' is putting it lightly, since Horus wasn't even born on December 25th. (plot twist, m'rite?) Beyond that, Isis-Meri wasn't even a virgin, killing yet another one of the comparisons that Joseph tries to make between things.

The actual myth was that Isis used a spell to bring Osiris back from the dead so they could have sex. Pretty shallow, if you ask me.

I, as well as several others, as well as several Egyptologists you can find on the Internet, know of no reference anywhere to a "star in the east" or "three kings" and "new-born savior"; it is simply made up. I cannot find any source or information proving he was a "teacher when he was 12 years old", that he was "baptized at age 30", that he "walked on water" (but on the Internet, I did find several places that suggest he was "thrown in the water", but I have no direct source at this time for that). More so, I cannot find any evidence he was referred to as "The Truth", "The Light", Lamb of God", "the Good Shepherd", etc. (Edward's words, not mine.)

At this point, it actually seems as if Joseph is just making everything he says up, which probably doesn't inspire much confidence in his readers.

Typhon never betrayed Horus to die, because Horus never died. That's right, Horus never died, was crucified and was obviously never resurrected.

These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate in many cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have the same general mythological structure.

Something interesting Edward brings up here:

While the first few review are just idiots spewing crap around, if you read the lower ranked reviews, they mention how unsourced the book is. In fact, I recommend buying this book, so you can see for yourself not only how similar it is to the Zeitgeist, but also how much utter falsified drivel is in it.

The next few things mentioned are just other mythological stories that he tries to compare to the story of Jesus. I'm going to put what he says in bold, and then link to a summary of their actual story, rather than paraphrasing it myself.

Attis, of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.

Okay, so yes, he is associated with resurrection, but for entirely different reasons than Jesus is. (I don't remember Jesus having an illicit affair with a nymph, but maybe my Bible is just jacked up.)

Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected.

Again, I'm not seeing any of the stuff Peter Joseph talks about, especially because he flat out lies when it comes to 'the virgin Devaki'.

Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin on December 25th, was a traveling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the "King of Kings," "God's Only Begotten Son," "The Alpha and Omega," and many others, and upon his death, he was resurrected.

'Associated with drunkeness, madness and unrestrained sexuality.' I really need a new Bible, because I don't remember any of that about Jesus.

Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.

It says he was born of the earth, which goes against Joseph's comparisons with the sun.

The fact of the matter is there are numerous saviors, from different periods, from all over the world, which subscribe to these general characteristics. The question remains: why these attributes, why the virgin birth on December 25th, why dead for three days and the inevitable resurrection, why 12 disciples or followers? To find out, let's examine the most recent of the solar messiahs.

But...but--no, wait a second...I just proved that wrong. The only similarity I can see is that they were all divine beings, which is kinda...expected when reading mythology.

Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary on December 25th in Bethlehem, his birth was announced by a star in the east, which three kings or magi followed to locate and adorn the new savior. He was a child teacher at 12, at the age of 30 he was baptized by John the Baptist, and thus began his ministry. Jesus had 12 disciples which he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick, walking on water, raising the dead, he was also known as the "King of Kings," the "Son of God," the "Light of the World," the "Alpha and Omega," the "Lamb of God," and many others. After being betrayed by his disciple Judas and sold for 30 pieces of silver, he was crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days was resurrected and ascended into Heaven.

Whether Jesus was born on December 25th or not is debateable, especially since it wasn't assigned as his birthday until much later.

First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise -- the birth of the sun.

First off, 'astrology' is basically the study of the night sky from base insanity. 'Astronomy' is the real study of the stars. I don't know if I'm nitpicking, but it just struck me as odd.

When it comes to the alignment of the stars he, it's false. If you want to try for yourself, look up the way the stars were aligned at the time he's referring to. (according to Edward, to compensate for the calendar change, you should look at December 12th.)

Another assumption that he makes is that there are three kings, or three wisemen, which is false. The Bible never says how many people came, but rather how many gifts were given.

The Virgin Mary is the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin. Virgo in Latin means virgin. ancient glyph for Virgo is the altered "m". This is why Mary along with other virgin mothers, such as Adonis's mother Myrrha, or Buddha's mother Maya begin with an M.o is also referred to as the House of Bread, and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to "house of bread". Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on Earth.

The italicized line was cut from the final version of the movie.

He again assumed that the Roman alphabet (which is what english uses) was, is and always will be, the universal form of writing; to put it plainly, that's completely wrong, which renders what he says irrelevant.

'Virgo' does mean virgin in Latin, but it also means 'maiden' or 'young girl'; not just 'girl who hasn't had sex yet'. I guess the comparison is slightly valid, because sex was something that pretty much always happened at the same age then, so at the same time a girl stopped being considered young, she most likely also lost her virginity.

However, because it means young girl, it would have to only apply to girls who haven't had sex yet, rather than both genders, like we use it today.

It goes on to say that like other virgin mothers such as Myrrha and Maya they begin with an M. The main problem with this is that Myrrha was not a virgin, as Adonis was conceived after Myrrha had committed incest with her father King Theias. Maya was also not a virgin, she had been married for 20 years, but did not conceive until a night where she had a dream about an elephant sleeping by her side. Maya's name begins with the letter "म" not M, though it is a similar sound. So, while they may start with similar sounds, except for Myrrha, for thousands of years they were not written with the Latin or Greek letter M. As such, because the Virgo symbol resembles the letter M, this does not mean it is related to M, and therefore no real connection can be made this way.

Okay, so his comparisons are wrong again, since some of the names he mentions just don't match up how he says they should.

By far one of the strangest claims is that Virgo is also referred to as the "house of bread". I went through several astrology books, searched the Internet, and I cannot find a source for such a claim. Bethlehem does indeed mean "house of bread" in Hebrew, however seeing how Virgo is not referred to as the "house of bread", there is no real connection here. It seems as though a large jump was made in order to claim "Virgin Mary" means "Virgo" and of course following their claim that Virgo is also "House of Bread", Bethlehem is really a reference to that. The film maker cannot seem to make up his mind as to whether Virgo really means Mary or Bethlehem. Regardless of this, Bethlehem is a real place and it was at that time as well, therefore a claim that it is "a place in the sky, not on Earth" coupled with the other evidence, holds no water.

How exactly anyone would think that the same word that means 'maiden' or 'virgin' would also mean 'house of bread' is just kind of disturbing to think about.

There is another very interesting phenomenon that occurs around December 25th, or the winter solstice. From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the days become shorter and colder. From the perspective of the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move south and get smaller and more scarce. The shortening of the days and the expiration of the crops when approaching the winter solstice symbolized the process of death to the ancients. It was the death of the Sun. By December 22nd, the Sun's demise was fully realized, for the Sun, having moved south continually for 6 months, makes it to it's lowest point in the sky. Here a curious thing occurs: the Sun stops moving south, at least perceivably, for 3 days. During this 3 day pause, the Sun resides in the vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation. And after this time on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree, this time north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and Spring. And thus it was said: the Sun died on the cross, was dead for 3 days, only to be resurrected or born again. This is why Jesus and numerous other Sun Gods share the crucifixion, 3-day death, and resurrection concept. It is the Sun's transition period before it shifts its direction back into the Northern Hemisphere, bringing Spring, and thus salvation.

Oh gosh, wall of text again. If you want, don't even bother reading through it, just read what me and Edward say.

The winter solstice does occur around December 25th, but not ON December 25th; it occurs on the 21st, as far as I know.

The film maker goes on to attempt to draw connections between death of the sun, a crucifixion, being dead three days, and coming back to life. The problem, again, none of the other gods aside from Jesus were crucified. This could be an attempt to make a connection between Jesus, the crucifixion, and the other gods; however this attempt does not work because of what I have already shown. The reason the cross represents Christianity and by extension Jesus, has little to do with the sun "resid[ing] in the vicinity of the southern cross" and more to do with the fact Jesus was crucified by Romans on a cross. The evidence shows, there is no connection between Jesus, sun gods, the crucifixions, three day deaths, and resurrections.

Basically, because of prior arguments, all the comparisons he's trying to make here are invalid and irrelevant.

I can also agree entirely with Christianity's symbol being a cross because Jesus was crucified on one, rather than the...patently ridiculous conclusion, having to do with the souther cross and some other stuff.

However, they did not celebrate the resurrection of the Sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring equinox, the Sun officially overpowers the evil darkness, as daytime thereafter becomes longer in duration than night, and the revitalizing conditions of spring emerge.

Like Christmas, Easter was just made because the Roman Catholic Church wanted to 'cover up' a pagan holiday, rather than because of the things suggested by Joseph.

Now, probably the most obvious of all the astrological symbolism around Jesus regards the 12 disciples. They are simply the 12 constellations of the Zodiac, which Jesus, being the Sun, travels about with.

I guess it has nothing to do with there being 12 tribes of Israel or anything like that? Because the Bible has never ever used numbers to have other meanings. /sarcasm

In fact, the number 12 is replete throughout the Bible. This text has more to do with astrology than anything else.

Um, no. The numbers 3, 7, 10, and 40 are also used quite a bit, but not for the meaning he's going for, but rather as a form of symbolism understood by the church back then. Nice try, though.

Coming back to the cross of the Zodiac, the figurative life of the Sun, this was not just an artistic expression or tool to track the Sun's movements. It was also a Pagan spiritual symbol, the shorthand of which looked like this. This is not a symbol of Christianity. It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. This is why Jesus in early occult art is always shown with his head on the cross, for Jesus is the Sun, the Sun of God, the Light of the World, the Risen Savior, who will "come again," as it does every morning, the Glory of God who defends against the works of darkness, as he is "born again" every morning, and can be seen "coming in the clouds", "up in Heaven", with his "Crown of Thorns," or, sun rays.

I'm going to feel bad about making such a short response to this, but who cares?

Contrary to the picture painted by Peter Joseph, the reason Christianity's symbol is a cross is because Jesus was crucified on one.

No, it's not something special to be crucified on a cross, but that's been pointed out by smarter men than Peter Joseph.

As for his assertion for why Jesus was on the cross the way he was...well, try this: stand up, and raise your arms. Wow. Look, a cross! It must mean something deep!

Or not. Maybe, just maybe, the Romans used the cross because it was convenient to hang people on?

Of course, that's not completely sound, because of the story that Simon Peter was hung on a cross upside down, but because that was of his own request, I think it can be discarded as 'evidence' for Joseph's theory here.

Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scripture there are numerous references to the "Age." In order to understand this, we need to be familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient Egyptians along with cultures long before them recognized that approximately every 2150 years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different sign of the Zodiac. This has to do with a slow angular wobble that the Earth maintains as it rotates on it's axis. It is called a precession because the constellations go backwards, rather than through the normal yearly cycle. The amount of time that it takes for the precession to go through all 12 signs is roughly 25,765 years. This is also called the "Great Year," and ancient societies were very aware of this. They referred to each 2150 year period as an "age." From 4300 b.c. to 2150 b.c., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 b.c. to 1 a.d., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 a.d. to 2150 a.d. it is the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius.

He's starting to move out my area, so I'm going to be quoting Edward a bit more here.

Now that the film maker has lead the watcher into a certain mindset, it is time to kick it up a notch. The film maker claims there are many "astrological-astronomical metaphors" in the Bible, but provides no evidence to back this up. He then goes on to talk about how age is really a metaphor for the astrological ages such as Aries and Pisces. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest such, and we will discuss this further in a bit. It makes various claims about the zodiac and the length of ages, while these claims are not necessarily inaccurate, they prove very little when discussing the Bible.

Basically, there isn't any reason to believe what Joseph's saying at this point, because he hasn't actually backed anything up.

It would be like me saying "Hm, I have ten fingers, and ten is the first number with double digits, so it must mean something." That's not to say it can't mean anything, rather that it doesn't until I prove it.

Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a symbolic movement through 3 ages, while foreshadowing a 4th. In the Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the 10 Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull calf. In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each other in order to purify themselves. Most Biblical scholars would attribute this anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, or something to that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. This is why Jews even today still blow the Ram's horn. Moses represents the new Age of Aries, and upon the new age, everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology.

The film maker discusses that Moses came down from Mount Sinai with this 10 commandments and smashed them because he saw his people worshipping a bull, but in reality that bull was Taurus. According to the film, Moses represents the new age of Aries, and that's why Moses was angry. It goes on to say that because Moses represents Aries the ram, that is why Jews blow the ram's horn. It is far more likely that the reason Jews use the ram's horn is because they raised sheep, and a horn can be easily made into an instrument. These claims cannot be substantiated with history either, primarily because the movie says the age Aries was from 2150 BC to 1 AD, however the earliest dates given by scholars for Exodus does not place it until over 650 years after the Age began, a little late for Moses to start a new age and get angry that nobody else had caught on.

Well, beyond that, if the bull represented Taurus...why does Moses represent Aries? I don't think he looked like a ram, so is it just because he was there?

Now Jesus is the figure who ushers in the age following Aries, the Age of Pisces the Two Fish. Fish symbolism is very abundant in the New Testament. Jesus feeds 5,000 people with bread and "2 fish." When he begins his ministry walking along Galilei, he befriends 2 fisherman, who follow him. And I think we've all seen the Jesus-fish on the backs of people's cars. Little do they know what it actually means. It is a Pagan astrological symbolism for the Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces. Also, Jesus' assumed birth date is essentially the start of this age.

Just like with Moses we run into various problems with the claims stated in the film. The Age of Pisces is represented by two fish, but the film maker chooses his words carefully. He gleefully mentions that Jesus fed 5,000 people with 2 fish, but he chooses not to mention the amount of bread. The passage in the Bible says "We only have five loaves of bread and two fish". [53] The reason he does not mention the amount of bread is so that the parallel between the zodiac and the bible fits. It also is not out of the ordinary that fish is mentioned, it was a very common food staple in the region. Therefore, if someone were to have food, it would have probably been bread and fish.

In response to Joseph's assertion about Christianity's fish symbol...well...:

It goes on to say that the fish symbol on the back of people's cars is actually a pagan astrological symbol for the "Sun's Kingdom during the Age of Pisces". However, the true meaning behind the fish does not fit the parallel with the zodiac they are trying to make. The fact is the ancient and classical Greek word for fish is "ΙΧΘΥΣ" which is also an acronym for "Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ" or "Jesus Christ God's Son is Savior" [54].

I actually thought most people had heard that somewhere before at this point in time, but I guess not.

At Luke 22:10 when Jesus is asked by his disciples where the next passover will be after he is gone, Jesus replied: "Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water... follow him into the house where he entereth in." This scripture is by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references. The man bearing a pitcher of water is Aquarius, the water-bearer, who is always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water. He represents the age after Pisces, and when the Sun (God's Sun) leaves the Age of Pisces (Jesus), it will go into the House of Aquarius, as Aquarius follows Pisces in the precession of the equinoxes. Also Jesus is saying is that after the Age of Pisces will come the Age of Aquarius.

The film talks about a passage in the Bible and claims it is "by far one of the most revealing of all the astrological references." The problem here is it does not reveal anything except that the film maker has completely misquoted the Bible. While the reply from Jesus is correct, the question the disciples ask is not. The film maker claims that the man bearing the pitcher that Jesus is talking about, actually symbolizes the Age of Aquarius. Luke 22:10 is accurately quoted, but let's take a closer look at the disciples' question.

Like 22:7-9 states the following: "Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed [56]. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, 'Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.' They said to Him, 'Where do You want us to prepare it?'".

As stated above, the disciples are not asking about where the next Passover will be, but rather where they would be eating that night. Aside from that though, the symbolism put forth by the movie is also inaccurate. The movie describes Aquarius as "always pictured as a man pouring out a pitcher of water", however in the passage from the Bible, the man is not pouring the water, but carrying it. If is the symbolic reference that the movie claims, why is the symbolism incorrect?

Now, we have all heard about the end times and the end of the world. Apart from the cartoonish depictions in the Book of Revelation, the main source of this idea comes from Matthew 28:20, where Jesus says "I will be with you even to the end of the world." However, in King James Version, "world" is a mistranslation, among many mistranslations. The actual word being used is "aeon", which means "age." "I will be with you even to the end of the age." Which is true, as Jesus' Solar Piscean personification will end when the Sun enters the Age of Aquarius. The entire concept of end times and the end of the world is a misinterpreted astrological allegory. Let's tell that to the approximately 100 million people in America who believe the end of the world is coming.

It's actually translated 'I will be with you even until the end of eternity'. But before he tries to put some symbol on that, Jesus is just trying to convey the fact that he won't ever leave us.

So basically, even though it was mistranslated, it still means the same thing.

Furthermore, the character of Jesus, a literary and astrological hybrid, is most explicitly a plagiarization of the Egyptian Sun-god Horus. For example, inscribed about 3500 years ago, on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt are images of the enunciation, the immaculate conception, the birth, and the adoration of Horus. The images begin with Thaw announcing to the virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus, then Nef the holy ghost impregnating the virgin, and then the virgin birth and the adoration. This is exactly the story of Jesus' miracle conception. In fact, the literary similarities between Jesus and the Egyption religion are staggering.

Already talked about Horus.

And the plagiarism is continuous. The story of Noah and Noah's Ark is taken directly from tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with over 200 different cited claims in different periods and times. However, one need look no further for a pre-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in 2600 b.c. This story talks of a Great Flood commanded by God, an Ark with saved animals upon it, and even the release and return of a dove, all held in common with the biblical story, among many other similarities.

Really?! So it doesn't mean that those other stories are proof for a global flood, rather than just plagiarism by the Bible? If so, then which one is the correct one?

Gilgamesh's flood was a different, and, might I add, false, story of a global flood.

And then there is the plagiarized story of Moses. Upon Moses' birth, it is said that he was placed in a reed basket and set adrift in a river in order to avoid infanticide. He was later rescued by a daughter of royalty and raised by her as a Prince. This baby in a basket story was lifted directly from the myth of Sargon of Akkad of around 2250 b.c. Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife.

As much as I want to point out the flaws here, this is about the Zeitgeist not Moses. As to what this actually has to do with his theory...I don't know.

Furthermore, Moses is known as the Law Giver, the giver of the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law. However, the idea of a Law being passed from God to a prophet on a mountain is also a very old motif. Moses is just a law giver in a long line of law givers in mythological history. In India, Manou was the great law giver. In Crete, Minos ascended Mount Dicta, where Zeus gave him the sacred laws. While in Egypt there was Mises, who carried stone tablets and upon them the laws of god were written.

Believe it or not, they didn't have digital devices or even paper and pencils back then, so how were they supposed to record laws? Burn it into their skin?

And as far as the Ten Commandments, they are taken outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the Dead phrased "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal," "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill," "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bare false witness" and so forth. In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth and resurrection, crucifixion, the ark of the covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, the great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover, and many many more, are all attributes of Egyptian ideas, long predating Christianity and Judaism.

Here, one moral code being similar to another moral code=proof. I'd like him to actually compare the entire Jewish law to the book of the dead and see what the similarities are.

Justin Martyr, one of the first Christian historians and defenders, wrote: "When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem Sons of Jupiter." In a different writing, Justin Martyr said "He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus." It's obvious that Justin and other early Christians knew how similar Christianity was to the Pagan religions. However, Justin had a solution. As far as he was concerned, the Devil did it. The Devil had the foresight to come before Christ, and create these characteristics in the Pagan world.

Despite all the other evidence that the film maker has put forth, he still feels the need to offer more evidence. Unfortunately for the movie these quotes are taken out of context and do not communicate what the film maker is trying to say they do. I had to track down where he took these quotes and I found them in Chapters 21 and 22 of the First Apology. If you read these chapters you will find that he is not saying these gods are the same as Jesus, lived and died in similar ways, rather he is saying that even though they are both gods and are held highly by the people, he will prove Jesus is superior. When he says "we propound nothing different", he is not saying the stories the same, because as you have seen, there are no gods that died in exactly the same way as Jesus. Rather he is basically saying "we're not saying your gods aren't great, but ours is better".

The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. In fact, the aspect of transference, of one character's attributes to a new character, can be found within the book itself. In the Old Testament there's the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prototype for Jesus. Joseph was born of a miracle birth, Jesus was born of a miracle birth. Joseph was of 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples. Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Brother "Judah" suggests the sale of Joseph, disciple "Judas" suggests the sale of Jesus. Joseph began his work at the age of 30, Jesus began his work at the age of 30. The parallels go on and on.

Joseph was not a miracle birth, unless it's discovered that men's sperm dries up at 70.

Jesus' 12 disciples=Joseph's 12 brothers? How, because of numbers? Because nothing else is the same.

30 pieces of silver=20 pieces of silver? I don't think so, bro.

Judas never suggested the sale of Jesus; he went around the other disciples and did it.

Furthermore, is there any non-Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary, who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous historians who lived in and around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed life of Jesus. How many of these historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair, that doesn't mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven't claimed the contrary. Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus's existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the "Anointed one". The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth.

You would think that a guy who rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven for all eyes to see and performed the wealth of miracles acclaimed to him would have made it into the historical record. It didn't because once the evidence is weighed, there are very high odds that the figure known as Jesus, did not even exist.

Oh mah gawsh. Even the biggest religion haters know that there was a man named Jesus who existed. And this guy is saying different? Well, ad populum, so here we go:

There are several non-Biblical historical pieces on Jesus, however the film maker later calls these into question. Indeed, there are several people who are just like Jesus, in fact Apollonius of Tyana is a very famous one, which the film surprisingly does not mention [74]. Of course the known historical accounts of Jesus are pretty vague and do refer to him as "Christus", which does mean "anointed one" in Greek, so this isn't a real piece of undeniable proof. However, Lucian who lived shortly after Jesus, does mention him directly [75]. The film also shows a list of other known historians of the time that do not mention Jesus or Christianity, that seems pretty obvious because at the time nobody knew who Jesus was, and his followers were a very small group.

Saying that the fourth source of Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years" over simplifies the situation, and is wrong. Josephus mentioned Jesus twice, the first time is too pro-Christian to be original work and it is obvious it was changed by Christians at some point, however the second time Josephus mentions Jesus, he mentions him in a negative way. Therefore, while the first time may have been changed by Christians and can be discarded, the second time was likely not changed, and cannot be discounted [76]. However, it may come down to a situation where belief in Jesus and his life is an act of faith, and regardless of the situation, the above paragraph as stated by the film maker, really has nothing to do with the rest of his claims. It appears as though he just wants to prove badly that Jesus didn't exist.

The reality is, Jesus was the Solar Deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control. By 325 a.d. in Rome, emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian Doctrines were established and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud. And for the next 1600 years, the Vatican maintained a political stranglehold on all of Europe, leading to such joyous periods as the Dark Ages, along with enlightening events such as the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

If your reality is what the rest of the world considers fringe belief, then sure.

The reality is that Jesus was not a solar deity as I have already debunked. There is little comparison between Jesus and older gods such as Horus, even though an attempt was made to link them, when one actually looks at the real history, the opposite is true. The film goes on to say that it was a political motive that moved Christianity and Jesus into the historical arena in order to create social control. The film maker claims that the Council of Nicea established various "Christian Doctrines [...] and thus began a long history of Christian bloodshed and spiritual fraud". The problem with this is that the Council of Nicea did not establish anything, instead they merely set in stone the doctrines that had been practiced by the various churches as the official position of the whole church [77].

Let's talk about a major math problem here, if the Council of Nicea was in 325 AD and had a vicious strangle hold for the next 1600 years, that would have an end date of 1925 AD. How did they maintain that control with the Protestant Reformation [78]? What about how France dominated the Church for over 70 years and made them relocate to Avignon, France [79]? The Pope and the Church were not what we think of them today until 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church was created when it split from the Eastern Church [80]. So, talk of the "Vatican" maintaining control during all these events is completely incorrect. It seems like the the film did not research the church well enough. In fact there are even more problems with the film maker's claims.

The first problem with blaming the church for "the Dark Ages" is that it occurred from 476 AD until 1000 AD, during the Church's weakest period as we discussed above. Second, modern historians tell us that the term "dark" is inaccurate, this was a term used by historians during the "enlightenment", chiefly due to the fact that the "dark age" era was the opposite of said age of "enlightenment". Generally today it is referred to as the "early middle ages". The so-called Dark Ages contained more than Christianity, it was also the failing Roman society, invading barbarians, and Christianity's struggle to organize and establish itself. So, in all, the claim that Christianity brought the Dark Ages is historically false.

The crusades was a much more complex situation, in fact crusades is a broad term for a series of battles over the span of nearly 300 years. It also bears mentioning that crusades that were not initiated by the Church, but rather a Muslim leader who destroyed a large Christian church in Jerusalem, so the blame cannot be square on Christianity. The Inquisition is also a broad term used for many events, and it is interesting to note that some Inquisitions were not by the Roman Catholic Church at all, however the film would have you believe that it is responsible for all of them. The crusades and the Inquisitions are far too complex to discuss here, but they did happen, but not always in the name of the Vatican.

As shown, the situation is far more complex the the film maker implies it is, and Christianity cannot be used as a scapegoat for all of Europe's woes. True evil has been done in the name of the Church, but for the most part not within the last 500 years. I am not a Christian Apologist, or even a Christian, but I do realize that the film is simply blaming the Church for all of Europe's problems. This is obvious a last ditch effort to affirm that Christian is an evil religion used for social control that is ripped off from other traditions -- we have shown these accusations are completely false.

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It served to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

Any remorse I might have felt about destroying this before, I no longer feel after reading this.

So, I'll end with a simple 'right back atcha, bro' to Peter Joseph.

Part two is about 9/11 being a governement conspiracy, which I will edit in sometimes soon, along with evolution, abiogenesis and other such stuff.


*I'm including some links relevant to things other than the Esoteric Agenda, which I'll post a writeup for later on.

Zeitgeist/Esoteric Agenda:



---Miller-Urey experiment. (life from non life/abiogenesis.)

--------| (subclass: organic-inorganic material [relevant to Miller-Urey]

---Big Bang theory. (redshift, singularities.)
1: (hubsite) [sources check out]
2: (stars older than the estimated age of the Universe, implying the calculations are inherently wrong all around.)
3: (simplified version of above.)
4: (expanding universe violates physical laws.)
5: (explanation for redshift.)
-------| (subclass: false loop theory:
6: (young galaxies.)


Back to top Go down


PostSubject: Re: Something no one is actually going to read.   20/9/2011, 00:07

Back to top Go down


PostSubject: Re: Something no one is actually going to read.   20/9/2011, 00:34

Back to top Go down
no one


PostSubject: I actually read, as predicted.   23/9/2011, 02:26

0) To avoid any possible confusion, I am czqx, and my intention is not to annoy you.

1) The zeitgeist is a strawman that could be knocked down without disproving each argument individually. I just skimmed instead of actually reading, but your arguments seem fine.

2) I misread “abiogenesis” as “aborigines,” so I thought you would try to contradict evolution using Australian natives.

3) It is not a contradiction for evolution to be true and abiogenesis false.

4) If we can create life, that’s no proof that life was originally created that way. Abiogenesis would not disprove creationism.

5) I do not know enough to say that the universe is expanding, but I can say that is wrong about it being impossible.

Suppose we have “a lattice system of rigid rods” dividing our universe into cubic volume elements such that:

A) Each cube has the same mass and same density.
B) Nothing can leave the grid, or it would leave the universe itself.

If the universe expands past this grid, then matter would flow out of the grid, violating B. However, this is because the grid no longer describes the universe. We would have to add other cubes to represent the area of expansion. They would start out empty, so the decrease in mass and density in all other cubes would be equal to the increase in the new cubes, violating no laws.

If you want, you can pretend that the lattice originally expanded beyond the universe, and that the expansion is just matter moving from populated to unpopulated cubes.

If we instead expand the grid, then he says we would not observe any expansion. The mass in each cube would not change.

But, each cube would be bigger. The matter would be less dense. That is something we could observe. Again, no laws are violated.

6) Thank you.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Something no one is actually going to read.   

Back to top Go down
Something no one is actually going to read.
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Robocenter :: Forum :: Chat Area-
Jump to: