Video.googlesta löytyy Zeitgeist suomenkielisellä tekstityksellä ja hyvää työtä onkin tehty, mutta ehdottaisin pientä lisäystä sinne laatikkoon mihin voi kirjoittaa lisätietoja: aloitukseksi voisi laittaa "Mitä yhteistä on kristinuskolla, syyskuun 11. päivän terrori-iskuilla 2001 ja USA:n keskuspankilla? Tämä dokumentti kertoo, kuinka vallanpitäjät meille valehtelevat". Näin lukijoille selviää heti ekassa lauseessa, mistä dokumentti kertoo. Tämänhetkinen kuvaus ei kiinnitä tarpeeksi huomiota, koska siinä puhutaan vain valehtelemisesta yleensä. Näinollen moni, joka eksyy vahingossa tämän dokumentin osoitteeseen, ei välttämättä katso sitä tarpeeksi kauan tai ei edes aloita katsomista, koska sen ensimmäinen osa käsittelee kristinuskon yhteyttä auringonpalvontaan. Näin ollen monet, jotka ovat kiinnostuneet WTC-iskujen ympärillä pyörivistä salaliittoteorioista, eivät kyllästyisi dokumentin ensimmäiseen osaan, eivätkä lähtisi sivulta pois.
Zeitgeist suomenkielisellä tekstityksellä:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7810993921354002750&hl=en
Zeitgeistin kotisivut:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Zeitgeist suomenkielisellä tekstityksellä:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7810993921354002750&hl=en
Zeitgeistin kotisivut:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Vastaukset 13
Vanhimmat
kovin mainostaa, se on vain eliitin propagandaelokuva, joka palvelee lopulta eliitin tarkoitusperiä.
Eliitin tarkoitus on tuhota kristinusko (ensimmäinen jakso), syyllistää 9/11:sta USA:aa, (toinen jakso), ja palata takaisin eliitille suosiolliseen kultakantaan.
Eli Ziionistinen eliitti on tuon Zeitgeistin takana.
paitsi, että USA:n hallitus on Illuministien kontrolloima ja monet USA:n hallitusmiehet illuminaatteja.
eiköhän 9/11 -tapauksessa ne oikeat syylliset löydy Israelista. Tietysi USA:n USA:n illut sitten hoitivat homman niin, että antoivat iskujen tapahtua..
Ymmärtääkseni kristinusko kaadetaan jotta voidaan siirtyä seuraavan valheeseen, realistiseen tiedeuskoon, joka poissulkee kaikki paranormaalit ilmiöt ja saa ihmiset uskomaan vain siihen mitä virallinen tiede tarjoaa?
Pitäisikö siihen oikeaan laitaan pistää varoitus: huom! zionistista propagandaa.
Mihin sitten pitäisi palata jos ei kultakantaan, mikä olisi parasta matti meikäläisen kannalta?
Mikä zeitgeistissa on totta, mikä tarua, näin lyhyesti muotoiltuna?
Kristinusko on eliitin luomus massojen manipuloimiseen, ja se on toiminut hyvin. Lienee nyt kyse siitä, että se on vain tehnyt tehtävänsä niin kuin esim. maailmansodat ja kylmä sota. Päämäärä eli New World Order lähestyy eikä uskontoja kohta enää tarvita eliitin näkökulmasta. Siis pähkinänkuoressa: kristinusko (ja muutkin) on satua, zeitgeist siinä oikeassa, mutta filmin taustavoimilla saattaa olla eri motiivi kuin totuuden kertominen.
massojen manipuloimista varten niin miksi siinä luvataan heittää mikrosirun ottaneet tulijärveen?
Ilmestyskirjan luvussa 13:16-17 seuraavasti: ”Ja se saa kaikki, pienet ja suuret, sekä rikkaat että köyhät, sekä vapaat että orjat, panemaan merkin oikeaan käteensä tai otsaansa, ettei kukaan muu voisi ostaa eikä myydä kuin se, jossa on merkki: pedon nimi tai sen nimen luku.”
Huomautettakoon tässä että sana ”merkki” jota käytetään tässä Kirjoitusten osassa, käännetään kreikkalaisesta sanasta ”charagma”, joka tarkoittaa leikata tai kyntää (plow) lihaan. Selvästi, tämä olisi vuorovaikutteisen mikrosirun istutusta!
Ilm. 13:16
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: [to receive: Gr. to give them]
Tässä King Jamesin englanninkielisessä versiossa on sanotaan vielä, että merkki laitetaan käden tai otsan SISÄÄN. Sanokaapa miksi näin on kirjoitettu ensimmäisellä vuosisadalla?
Kristinuskossa on paljon hyviä elementtejä, mutta se on silti alkujaan eliitin luomus, joka perustuu astrologiaan. Se on palvellut eliitin tarkoituksia, mutta nyt he haluavat tilalle New World Order -valtiouskonnon.
Kristinusko ei perustu astrologiaan vaan kristinuskon juuret on juutalaisuudessa. Jos viittaat zeitgeistiin niin se on täälläkin debunkattu useaan otteeseen.
kysymykseeni, minkä heitin. Jos kristinusko on eliitin luomus, niin miksi siinä varoitetaan pedon merkistä?
Anna edes yksikin debunkattu kohta, jolla on jotain merkitystä dokumentin kokonaisuuden kannalta. Jään odottamaan jännityksellä! :)
Ok, tässä ei ole vaan yhtä vaan aika monta:
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.
sekä
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYgcAWs5TMc
kristinusko ei perustu astrologiaan, ihan niin kuin muutkin uskonnot? Kristus kuoli ristillä, omaperäinen tarina?
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/religion/religion7.html
Kristityt uskovat silti ihan oikeasti, että juuri heidän tarinansa on totta, aika omahyväistä ja kerrassaan naiivia.
no tuossahan on paljon "todisteiden" osoittamista virheellisiksi. Nämä väitteet oon tuulesta temmattuja, ja ei ihme ettei saa tulta alleen(edes skeptikkojen ja ateistien piirissä). Ristiinnaulitseminen oli yleinen tapa tuomita kuolemaan.
Jeesus on Jumalan viimeinen ilmoitus ihmiskunnalle. Juutalaisille annettiin laki, buddhalaisille mietiskely, eivätkä kummatkaan oppineet tuntemaan Jumalaa, koska olivat synneissänsä. Nykypäivänä näitten vanhentuneiden ilmoitusten palveleminen johtaa ihmisiä harhaan.