zeitgeist movie

I guess that depends on what you mean by "not too long ago". About 500 years?

 

I highly recomend EndGame by Alex jones.

Its pretty much a fallow up to the third part of zeitgeist. Bilderberg Group + Nafta= Global minipulation.

 

It was a great crime of humanity. To sell God. Being religious was a synonym to obeying authorities. They used religion to manipulate people..

 

Did you know that the big bang theory which is so universally accepted by the scientific community today was created by the Roman Catholic Priest Georges Lemaitre?



He was a pioneer in applying Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology: suggesting a pre-cursor of Hubble's law in 1927, and then publishing his primeval atom theory in the pages of Nature in 1931. At the time Einstein believed in a static universe and had previously expressed his skepticism about Lemaître's original 1927 paper. A similar solution to Einstein's equations, suggesting a changing radius to the size of the universe, had been proposed in 1922 by Alexander Alexandrovich Friedman, as Einstein informed Lemaître when he approached him with the theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference (Friedman had also been criticized by Einstein), but it is Lemaître, with his proposed mechanism, that made the theory famous for several reasons according to historians. First, Friedman was a mathematician who was not working with astronomical data or concerned with the math as a description of physical reality. Secondly, Friedman died young and could not further work on his ideas. Thirdly, Lemaître worked with astronomers and made his theory in accord with observations and had consequences which could be tested. Fourth, Arthur Eddington made sure that Lemaître got a hearing in the scientific community.

Lemaître also proposed the theory at an opportune time since Edwin Hubble would soon release his velocity-distance relation that strongly supported an expanding universe and, consequently, the Big Bang theory. In fact, Lemaître derived what became known as Hubble's Law in his 1927 paper, two years before Hubble. However, since Lemaître spent his entire productive life in Europe rather than emigrating to America, American publicity machines have preferred to stress the contributions of scientists such as Hubble or Einstein who can be claimed to have a US connection.[citation needed]

Both Friedman and Lemaître had found that the universe must be expanding. Lemaître went further than Friedman, since he concluded that an initial "creation-like" event must have occurred. This is the Big Bang theory as we know it today, and this is why he is credited with its discovery.

Einstein at first dismissed Friedman and then (privately) Lemaître out of hand, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and priest get fast recognition. [4]







Lemaitre's work was done in the name of science, yet when this discovery was first announced it was heralded by many as authentic evidence of Creationism...you draw your own conclusions.

This Catholic Priest conceives the big bang theory AND Hubble's law before either Hubble or Albert Einstein arrived at these conclusions. And you people are categorizing all those with faith as a bunch of lobotomized dogs. You call ignorance? I say look in the mirror before judging.


You'd be mistaken to think that the religious have something to fear from science and reason. Quite the contrary. As Okiefreak said, it's only Biblical literalists who think of science in a negative light.

Even two recent Popes (Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII) have expressed their beliefs about the general validity of the theory of evolution. Evolution isn't mutually exclusive of Christianity unless you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old or whatever, which again is only believed by a fraction of Christians and Creationists.

 

Ok...here is a list of a few things.

Dying son of God cults, prelavant in all Indo-European heathen ways. Christmas {Yule}, Easter {from Eastre, Dawn Goddess}, Feast of St John even {Litha}, Halloween {Samhain}, Christmas Trees and greenery, Easter symbolisms, Devil {Deofel, God of Wilds}, Lord {Hlaford, Bread Ward}, Heaven {Heofen, cover}, Hell {Hel, covered}, Trinity {Celtic Indo-European}, Sin {Synn, not keeping law}, I could go on longer....and that is just the things they didnt steal from the Jews.

 

I found this the other day. I ain't read it all, just bits (it's just exerpts from the book anyway.
See what you think eh?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...sig=AzLbwVvBq6T8-NmYBStM5u0x9P4&hl=en#PPP1,M1

 

I preferred that GodAwfulTruth one to be honest, Zeitgeist was a bit shouty and conspiracy theorist-y. Godawfultruth put things forward a lot more objectively. I am still skeptical and will have to check it's sources. Thanks for the link at any rate though.

 

The things on that list came hundreds, or even 1000+ years after Christianity was formed (aside from the most basic like Heaven/Hell). The Bible never gave dates on which Christ was born or resurrected so as the generations went on, those of the Christian faith found themselves wanting to celebrate certain aspects of their faith. The fact that they picked out dates that coincide with certain seasons/solstices or borrow from paganism are insignificant insofar as THE BIBLE and THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY are concerned.

The term "Christmas" is derived from the origional Catholic term "Christ's Mass."

The holiday itself though, does not come from the Bible or any of the teachings of either Jesus, or the apostles. The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of N[ew] T[estament] origin. The day of Christ's birth cannot be ascertained from the N[ew] T[estament], or, indeed, from any other source.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges: The date of Christ's birth is not known. The Gospels indicate neither the day nor the month.

The date December 25, was selected by the Catholic Church over 300 years after Jesus death. The book Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays by Robert J. Myers says: "Prior to the celebration of Christmas, December 25 in the Roman world was the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun. This feast, which took place just after the winter solstice of the Julian calendar, was in honor of the Sun God, Mithras."

The Encyclopedia Americana informs us: The reason for establishing December 25 as Christmas is somewhat obscure, but it is usually held that the day was chosen to correspond to pagan festivals that took place around the time of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, to celebrate the rebirth of the sun. The Roman Saturnalia (a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture, and to the renewed power of the sun), also took place at this time, and some Christmas customs are thought to be rooted in this ancient pagan celebration.







Easter is only about the resurrection, and nothing more. Any festivities that people chose are all just that, festivities. The strictest of Christians think that celebrating Christmas is wrong because even though it's supposed to commemorate the birth of Jesus, it's really all just artificial and made-up with no real tie-in to the religion itself.



Here's where I'm coming from: I derive my faith from the life, teachings, and acts of Jesus as well as the Bible...NOT the many religious leaders and institutions that came in the generations after Jesus' death. As far as I'm concerned they have no significance or relevance to my beliefs. Why should they? I'm not worshipping them. Jesus was a perfect shining example. The men that came after clearly weren't.


So this being the case, the only attacks on my religion that even matter to me are the ones that address its origins.

 

Anyway, like I said, all the elements of the true Elder Ways, but none of the wisdom.

 

Weren't all the gospels about Jesus written 50+ years after his death?

 

Yeah, the only one dated from the time of Jesus were the letters of St. Paul.

 

Anyway, like I said, a scrap of weight-bearing evidence if it's not too much trouble. And if it is just say so. At least now you know that in order to discredit something, the evidence you're trying to use against it can't all be after-the-fact.

Well before His death and resurrection, there wasn't very much to say now was there? That was the foundation on which Christianity was built so OF COURSE the gospel is going to be dated after the crucification.


What I was referring to were all of the much much less important celebratory traditions and such that accumulated over time and took on certain aspects of other past traditions.

 

Only thing is though, the average age was early 40s then. So they wouldn't have been directly written by those who knew him.

 

Too bad nobody has the first clue about that. Nice theory though.

The only thing we DO know is that the accuracy of the texts has been confirmed word-for-word from today's versions to the originals. We know this at least, thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

Ooh, do you have a source for that? Because I seem to recall hearing a study comparing different texts and finding many different versions, even with different stories. The dead sea scrolls are gospels that were omitted from the bible, right?

And I mentioned the timing of the writing because it raises serious questions about accuracy. It wasn't like jesus died, was resurrected etc, and the onlookers sat down and wrote about it (I wonder what literacy rates were then), it was more like jesus died, was resurrected etc, and fifty years later, people decided to write about it. Fifty years. First, as was mentioned above, people didn't live very long in those days. In all probability, these were stories that became a sort of oral tradition for a little while before they were written down. Of course, details get confused, specifics slip through the cracks, people embellish so that others will keep listening, and the story turns from something true into more of a fable.

Now I'm not sure how much that could happen in fifty years, but you can bet that old men recalling it to younger men recalling it to others would skew the truth a bit. Not many people wrote. Scribes did that.

 

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/07/28/faith/21_13_557_19_07.txt


Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit reveals little change in Bible over 2,000 years

By: GARY WARTH Staff Writer | Monday, July 23, 2007 10:55 AM PDT ∞







The largest display of the Dead Sea Scrolls, sometimes called the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times, opens a week from today at the San Diego Natural History Museum.

Scheduled to run from today through Dec. 31, the exhibit will feature 24 Dead Sea Scrolls, including 10 exhibited for the first time, on loan from the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Because of the authority's restrictions about how many scrolls can leave Israel, only 12 will be displayed at one time. The exhibit will be revised with the second batch of scrolls in September.

Also on display through Dec. 31 will be three Dead Sea Scrolls, two on parchment and one on copper, on loan from the Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

The scrolls were discovered in a cave, coiled inside clay vases, by a goat herder in 1947. Excavations at the Dead Sea region later discovered about 900 scrolls in 11 caves.

Despite being safely stored in a dry container, 2,000 years took a toll on the scrolls, which were eaten away by fungi, worms and moisture. The scrolls on display, like all of the documents discovered in the find, are in fragments.

After connecting about 100,000 pieces, scholars have found that the scrolls contain biblical books, hymns, prayers and other important documents many believe were written by a Jewish sect known as the Essenes, who lived near the Dead Sea.

The find was of great historical significance because it was about 1,000 years older than any known version of the Bible, placing its authors much closer to the time of the Bible's actual events.

Some of the scroll's contents were published soon after their find, but for various reasons some were not released until the 1990s. The secrecy fueled speculation that the scrolls contained some sort of bombshell revelation that would contradict or significantly alter traditional biblical interpretations.

The eventual release of the scrolls seemed to prove just the opposite.

"To some degree, we didn't know how reliable later translations of the Bible were," said Risa Levitt Kohn, director of the Jewish Studies Program at San Diego State University and an associate professor of Hebrew Bible and Judaism in SDSU's Religious Studies Department. Kohn said the scrolls showed that translations of the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament, changed little in 2,000 years.

Peter Jones, scholar in residence and adjunct professor at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, said he studied the scrolls at Princeton University and wrote a doctoral dissertation comparing the Apostle Paul with the founder of the ancient city of Qumran, where the scrolls were discovered.

"It's sort of amazing to see how well the text had been preserved for 1,000 years, because the text we had been using 1,000 years later can be verified by these very early texts, so that's one good thing," Jones said.

Besides verifying contemporary versions of the Old Testament, Jones and Kohn said the Dead Sea Scrolls also gave insight to the beliefs of the people who wrote them.

'I think the community that wrote the scrolls thought they were living in very turbulent times," Kohn said. "They hoped for a more peaceful future, even if that meant that they'd have a cataclysmic event first and they would lose everything."








If you want to further verify, just type something like "dead sea scrolls accuracy" or "dead sea scrolls confirm bible accuracy" into google.


And no, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not books that were omitted from the bible or anything like that. They were early copies from the Old Testament, as well as misc. writings about local community ordinances and other stuff like that.

 

Well thank God they found fragments of Genesis! I was a little skeptical about the whole 6 day creation thing but this proves it without a doubt!! God created the earth and man in 6 days and even added 60 Million years worth of dinosaur rainforrest fossil fuel for us to burn up. What a stickler for detail! I'm SOLD!!!!

 

Even today in some places a man needs to at least fake a belief in the local religion if he wants to survive.

Hell, most places you need to do this if you want social acceptance, or a job, or political power...

 

Anyone who knows anything about mythology knows the myths that existed wayyy before the bible (sumerian, etc) are what the OT is based on. They were compiled by various priestclasses, from the Deuteronomists to the Yahweists, and all in between.

 

You are an ass.



Obviously the point of my post (which I think I made quite clear) was that the Old Testament that we have today has retained its accuracy word-for-word going back at least 2000 years. This dispells any myths that things have been embellished over the generations, and details had been tacked on over the years like fables as FreakerSoup suggested.


I don't see what your lack of beliefs has to do with that.

Well you've been going on and on about this, yet every time I ask you to show something specific you fail to do so.


You're so quick to dismiss beliefs that have been held by billions of individuals over thousands of years. Yet, you expect everyone to just take your word for it?

HINT: When you're trying to discredit something as long running as Christianity, or a piece of writing as historical and influential as the Old Testament, simply typing up a sentence or two just isn't going to cut it. You'll have to do better.