Go Back   Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) > Project Camelot Forum > Project Camelot > Books, Videos, Articles, etc.

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-18-2008, 12:00 PM   #13
elirien
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 100
Default Re: zeitgeist

Quote:
Originally Posted by TranceAm View Post
Errors...

I thought that it was quite revealing that.. Jesus wasn't the first one to reappear after death.. Others had done that trick before, and a MEME was copied....
One would think that something unexplainable would happen for the FIRST time.
Nono, an idea already around for somewhat longer was recycled.
That rings true with me but which story is true? Perhaps one of the Jesus stories is made by the mystery schools? It is a very great probability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TranceAm View Post
Beside that, if God really would have made a son and make a point that mankind couldn't deny, it would have been, that Jesus COULDN"T die like a man.
Hell, how hard can that be, if you can change your specific weight to lower then that of water.


Well I didn't understand anything from the above paragraph. sorry


Quote:
Originally Posted by TranceAm View Post
Then we can add some history that can be learned from 'The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine" and I quote from
Quote:
Originally Posted by TranceAm View Post
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.htm
:

"
Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.
"

"But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas."

"
IT is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.
The ancient mythologists tell us that the race of Giants made war against Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred rocks against him at one throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and confined him afterwards under Mount Etna; and that every time the Giant turns himself, Mount Etna belches fire. It is here easy to see that the circumstance of the mountain, that of its being a volcano, suggested the idea of the fable; and that the fable is made to fit and wind itself up with that circumstance.
The Christian mythologists tell that their Satan made war against the Almighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not under a mountain, but in a pit. It is here easy to see that the first fable suggested the idea of the second; for the fable of Jupiter and the Giants was told many hundred years before that of Satan.
Thus far the ancient and the Christian mythologists differ very little from each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much farther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous part of the story of Jesus Christ with the fable originating from Mount Etna; and, in order to make all the parts of the story tie together, they have taken to their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the Christian mythology is made up partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewish traditions.
The Christian mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the garden of Eden in the shape of a snake, or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tate is, that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.
After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women, and doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?
Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded --put Satan into the pit--let him out again--given him a triumph over the whole creation--damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing [NOTE: The French work has: "yielding to an unrestrained appetite.--Editor.] had eaten an apple."

"

PUTTING aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.
In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan a power equally as great, if not greater, than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.
Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.
Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd, less contradictory. But, instead of this they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.
That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime) is what I have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story. The more unnatural anything is, the more is it capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration. [NOTE: The French work has "blind and" preceding dismal."--Editor.]"

So could you enlighten us about the Errors?
Well why did you use Thomas Paine as a source? I think and this is just an opinion that this guy is a teacher of the mystery religion, the exoteric Osirian cycle rather then a man of fact. I don't believe in any mass religion but I am slowly deciphering the method or the 'rythm' so to speak of these exoterically astrological but esoterically philosophical themes that these mass religions that claim that they are for the individual use very often.

By the way, slapping the Muslim label on Turks is very very ignorant. There are now investigations for the Khazar Turks who became Jews long before the times this document was written. Original Turks practiced shamanism before and even some during the Ottoman Empire's reign. There are satanists called Yezidis, Orthodox Christians and many other religious aims. A Turk is a muslim who follows "Mahomet" (which some claim was obvious slander from the mystery schools, mutilating the name Baphomet. His name is Muhammed, Mehmet, Mahmut and other derivations in Turkish and I believe Mohammad is the Arabian original) is quite ignorant and generalizing like claiming Americans are Christians.

I know that in that time the Ottoman Empire was the sole state of Muslims but it doesn't mean that it was a Turkish Empire. The divan was almost all together non-Turkish besides the Sultans whose mothers were again non-Turkish. You could claim that the people of the Ottoman Empire were Turkish but that smells quite fantasy since I can't believe that the libido of that tribe wouldn't quite reach 2 continent's and that they invaded land by slaughtering everyone (quite the contrary happened which is historically proven and I am too lazy to find you the articles concerning that. Look it up. And btw Atilla is a European Hun )

This eradicates quite many of the credibility points of this guy who in his claims never once wrote down from which sources he is taking his claims from.

Map 1: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cffor...omanempire.gif

Map 2: http://www.ata.boun.edu.tr/Faculty/N..._1683-1800.jpg


Ok. I could rant and go on for hours and pages but I need to work to feed myself Take care.

I think the errors you could see at the links to the videos and it would be nice of you if you could point to the direct claim in lets say zeitgeist refuted minute 5 where it says "bla bla bla Jesus bla bla". This is quite tiring
elirien is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Project Avalon