ZEITGEIST (NWO-dokumentti)

professorin lähettämästä kirjeestä zeitgeistin tekijöille


11:50--The narrator states that "The Sun...was personified as a
representative of the unseen Creator or God." The early cultures
believed that the Sun WAS a god, and they did personify the Sun. But I
know of none that believed that there was an unseen God that the Sun
REPRESENTED, or that there was a God who owned the Sun. So it is not
clear how you then jump to conclusion that this is "God's Sun," and
there is no explanation of how you concluded that the Sun was somehow
"the Savior of Humankind." Do you mean because it helped the crops to
grow?

12:12--I'm afraid this section has quite a number of inaccuracies in
it. The narrator states that Horus was of 3000 BC. Horus was a god
worshipped in Egypt for a long time, not just in 3000. Moreover, there
are many version of Horus. I think you mean that an early story of the
battle between Horus and Set comes from around 3000. But that story is
about Horus the Elder, who was not the sun god, but the sky god. The
sun was considered one of his eyes and the moon the other. The Horus
who was represented as the winged sun disk was Horus of Behdet
(sometimes called simply Behdety). There are stories of his battles
with Set too, so I think this is the Horus you mean. You should take
out the date 3000, though, and I would recommend giving his full name
(Horus of Behdet) at least once.

I can find no evidence in any of the Egyptian records that Isis was a
virgin or that Horus was born without contribution from a father. Isis
was married to Osiris. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back
together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis
which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis
for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal
about that. Perhaps people think this because the penis was fake?? But
the fact that she had to use the penis to get pregnant suggests that it
had something to do with the pregnancy. So maybe you should leave the
virgin part out. (I know this will be hard, since you want to have as
many similarities as possible with Jesus, but you have to be fair
here.)

I do not think there is any evidence that there was a Star from the
East that guided the three visitors to the baby Horus. Where did you
get this from? If you cannot verify it from actual Egyptian records,
then you should leave it out. Please see the following website for a
discussion of the evidence for this:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carri...inscriptio n.htm

There is no indication that Horus was "a prodigal child teacher" when
he was 12. And Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were
followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an
unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus
did not have 12 disciples. And he was not crucified.

I would recommend using only the birth date (all sun gods, of course,
are born at that time of year), the miracles, and the titles (though I
don't think "the Lamb of God" was used of him). I know this is not as
good, but you have to be historically accurate.

You may also use the death and resurrection parallel, except you should
make it clear that this was originally about Horus' father Osiris, but
later, when Horus and his father became equated, Horus became known as
the resurrected Osiris. I know of no myth that says he was resurrected
3 days later.

14:00--Regarding Attis, the daughter of the god of the Sangarius river
conceived Attis not by sexual intercourse, but by taking the fruit of
an almond tree that had grown up from the sexual organ of Agdistis,
which the gods had cut off. But, as you can see, a penis was still
involved (as in the case of Isis). Perhaps it would be best to change
the wording on all of these from "born of a virgin" to "born without
sexual intercourse" or something like that.

Attis was not crucified. And there is no myth of which I am aware that
says he was buried for 3 days.

14:10--I don't know much about Krishna, but I would suggest you check
your facts to be sure of this. I heard that he was born to the princess
Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. I don't know of any "Star in the East"
myth associated with him and have never heard of a death and
resurrection story for him either.

14:20--Regarding Dionysus, he is the son of Zeus and Semele in some
myths and the son of Zeus and Persephone in others. I know of no virgin
birth story, though there are some versions that have him born from two
mothers and one father. I also know of no evidence that he was born on
Dec. 25. His festival was in March.

14:40--Regarding Mithra, I think you are confusing him with Mithras,
whose cult resembles Christianity in some ways. Mithra was a Persian
deity that has little resemblance to Jesus. Mithras was a Roman deity
that does. I don't know about any myths that have him buried for 3
days. And more importantly, Mithraism was contemporaneous with
Christianity.

16:30--In this section you conflate two traditions, the biblical story
with later Roman interpretation of that story. Your discussion here is
about the latter (and it is valid), but you make it seem as if it's how
the story was originally written. December 25th and the 3 "Kings" are
not in the Bible (the Magi are not kings).

16:48--Regarding the "M" for the constellation Virgo, you assume that
the symbol for it (the Greek letter Mu) influenced the names of virgin
goddesses, but the constellation has been associated with nearly every
prominent goddess, including Ishtar, Isis, Cybele, Mary, and Athena,
the names of which do not all start with M. You also assume that
Buddhists used the letter "M" for this constellation. Why would they
have used a Greek letter?

17:25--Here you seem to be suggesting that Bethelehem is a made-up
place, a reference to something "not on earth." But it was a town that
actually existed. We have archaeological remains. If you are suggesting
that the name of this place was chosen for the story because it
corresponded with the name of the constellation, then say so.

17:30-19:25--All the stuff about the sun dying for three days and the
spring equinox is good.

19:50--To say that the Bible has "more to do with astrology than
anything else" is too much of an exaggeration. That's one mighty large
book, and it talks about a great many things. Plus, many of the
astrological associations in Christianity are post-biblical.

20:00--All the stuff about the cross is fine.

21:05--Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but the
"crown of thorns" analogy is a stretch, because it occurs in a context
not related to Jesus' being in the sky.

22:15--You don't explain why you start counting the ages from 4300 BC.
This date will seem arbitrary if you do not explain why. You also
should explain why you start with Taurus.

26:30--The section on the wall at Luxor is a stretch. You are, of
course, entitled to your interpretation, but most Egyptologists (even
atheists) would not take it seriously, I'm afraid. There is no
depiction of any immaculate conception, and no way of telling what is
being said by any of the characters, if they are saying anything at
all.

27:15--I cannot verify all the items in this list, because I couldn't
read it. I have a feeling you didn't verify them all either. But the
image is effective.

27:33--The epic of Gilgamesh was not written in 2600 BC. Some old
episodes about Gilgamesh began to be recorded then, but the epic as we
have it today is from the 8th century BC. The part of it concerning the
flood probably predates the Bible, but it is impossible to determine
exactly how old it is.

28:15--The Sargon legend comes from several centuries after Sargon, so
you have the date wrong here too. With regard to both the epic of
Gilgamesh, the legend of Sargon, and the Bible, scholars say it is more
likely that there was a common tradition that all three drew from than
that the Bible copied directly from the other two works.

29:00--There is no etymological relationship between the three "M"
names. You are really stretching here. The similarities are
superficial.

29:14--This part is very weak because it seems to be ignoring the fact
that the laws of many nations are similar, not because they were
copying from each other, but because in order for a community to
function, there are going to be laws that have to be made. I mean, what
society can function without laws against murder and stealing? They ALL
have them! Communities thousands of miles apart and with no
communication between each other are still going to have laws against
stealing, murder, etc. It has nothing to do with copying. It's part of
civilization.

29:30--Again, you need to delete "virgin birth." And where do you get
"ark of the covenant" and "communion" and "passover" from? I am not
aware of these, and you did not explain them previously.

32:50--Since when does the quantity of sentences within a historian's
work establish whether a person is historical or not. If "Christus" is
mentioned, then the writers obviously believed there was a Christus.
These Roman writers were talking about him in the context of
Christianity, so there is no way to make Christus be anybody else
except the founder of the Christian sect.

33:07--To be fair, the subject of how much of Josephus' reference to
Jesus is original and how much is a forgery is still the subject of
controversy today, even among non-Christians. Most scholars think that
Josephus did refer to Jesus, but that the text was later embellished.

Why not leave open the possibility that there was a man Jesus, but that
the numerous legends about him are fabrications?

34:12--Here you assume that Gnostic Christians came first. But there
were "historical" gospels written before the Gnostic ones. Gnosticism
is not the original form of Christianity. It is just one of its many
branches.

35:12--You just got through demonstrating that Christianity was based
on phenomena of the natural world and then here say that Christianity
"serves to detach the species from the natural world." It seems
contradictory. Do you mean later Christianity?

I also think it is important for you to distinguish between "religion"
and "theism." The former has caused a lot more problems than the
latter, which is merely a belief.

33:55--Here we hear someone say, "We want to be factual" and
"acedemically correct." I urge you to live up to this and make the film
even stronger by eliminating the errors and adjusting the wording.

lukijoita, jotka eivät ole täällä aiemmin käyneet ja siksi on tärkeää mainostaa näitä dokumentteja säännöllisin väliajoin.

New_World_Order kirjoitti:

lukijoita, jotka eivät ole täällä aiemmin käyneet ja siksi on tärkeää mainostaa näitä dokumentteja säännöllisin väliajoin.

No se.

.huuhaa-ukko kirjoitti:

No se.

osoitti virheitä zeitgeist dokumentista, tosin itse liskomies ei kirjoittanut tekstiä.

Ykkönen on paljon parempi kuin kakkonen, koska tuo ykkösessä käytiin läpi kaikki relevanttia kun taas kakkosen viesti on että RAHA on kaikkien pahan takana ja hävittämällä raha yhteiskunnastamme niin kaikki tulee olemaan yhtä juhlaa. Yeah right!

2+2 kirjoitti:

Ykkönen on paljon parempi kuin kakkonen, koska tuo ykkösessä käytiin läpi kaikki relevanttia kun taas kakkosen viesti on että RAHA on kaikkien pahan takana ja hävittämällä raha yhteiskunnastamme niin kaikki tulee olemaan yhtä juhlaa. Yeah right!

mitäs siinä oli relevanttia?

en ole nähnyt ketään hurraamassa. ellet itse ole hurrannut. venus project antaa päälipuolisen kuvan miltä yhteiskunta voi näyttää, kun resursit jaetaan keskenään. ei pelkästään addendumissa mutta myös Frescon ja Josephin luennoissa joita löytyy youtubesta on hyviä ideoita maailman parantamiseksi.

jos luulet että yhdellä videolla voitaisiin selittää tulevaisuuden yhteiskunta yksiselitteisesti. hhehhehhe siihen tarvitaan kaikkien apua ja addendum on loistava lähtökohta sanan levittämiseen.

sen nwo:n tehdään me ihmiset yhdessä, se on ihan sama kuinka hölmöjä me ollaan, meistä ihmisistä se nwo kuitenkin on kiinni, yksin meistä.

uudistaa täysin korruptoitunut mätä paska järjestelmä.

Jos venus projekti on NWO:ta niin ei haittaa pätkääkään.

shqejer kirjoitti:

Jos venus projekti on NWO:ta niin ei haittaa pätkääkään.

kritiikki on tarpeen mutta vaikka tiedänkin että zg:n ykkösosa on täyttä paskapuhetta ja venus projekti kaukainen haave niin kyllä kannattaa levittää sanaa!!!

23325325 kirjoitti:

kritiikki on tarpeen mutta vaikka tiedänkin että zg:n ykkösosa on täyttä paskapuhetta ja venus projekti kaukainen haave niin kyllä kannattaa levittää sanaa!!!

Näinpä, ihmisistä se on kiinni miten halutaan elää, jos niin nautitaan maanpäällisestä helvetistä niin siinähän sitten elellään.