Shattering the Christ Myth

[AcornThornpicker]

Not to derail things any further, but does anyone know who is behind Zeitgeist? And what sort of worldview he or she has?

"Peter Joseph" [his two middle names are used to protect his family from threats] is behind the movement. I'm not going to watch it, but there's a documentary about him, apparently. Who is Peter Joseph? A Film by Charles Robinson

<<[...] the Zeitgeist Film Series as a whole has a dedicated social intent to create awareness about the world we share, the problems we face, along with what we can do to make it better as a collective species.>>

His grand aim is something he has called a "Resource-Based Economy", which basically rests on new age concepts of sustainability and a utopian social system that we can bring into existence.


Having attended more than just the introductory macroeconomics course I can safely say that the creator does not fully understand the economy, which is surprising given his background in equity trading and leads me to believe that he is intentionally misleading his followers.... that, or he actually doesn't know which is surprisingly a little more disconcerting. Having read on "Tertullian" I'm fairly unwilling to take serious their claims of religious theft.... and those two questionable sections lead me to actively disbelieve the rest of their work without personal verification.

Still, it's a little entertaining if you can see the strings. If you're really curious, my favourite economist, when asked on the spot how the economy was creating an endless cycle of debt [with arguments from the film], managed to shoot down completely that portion of the film with four words: "People create new wealth". It might require a bit of elaboration, but those words summarize exactly what's missing from the Zeitgeist doomsday version of the economy.

So, um, nothing to see there, folks!
</end derailment>

Re: "The Christ Myth" -- I love that terrible set and want it.

As has been said, an argument from silence is pretty silly. I thought that was the Theist's argument -- "There's no proof against God, so He must exist unless you can prove otherwise!"

And we all know Jesus was born on the 6th of January, obviously.

I don't agree with the idea that there never was some fellow called Jesus of Nazareth, but I do support his trying to shoot down those ridiculous "copycat" ideas.

Everyone keeps getting closer to the idea of this Perfect Christ, so the ultimate realization MUST be false! ...I know the opposite is an argument ad populum, but "Many cultures develop this idea ---> must be false" sounds... well, it sounds like hipster apologetics, really. They liked Eternal Salvation through the Shed Blood and Resurrection of their Incarnate God BEFORE it was cool.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Sustainability - a New Age concept?

If that's what they teach you in economy classes, that just reinforces my impression that Economics is merely another ideological meta-narrative these days, and not much of an academic discipline after all.

As for "people create new wealth": unless they somehow re-grow non-regenerative resources AND miraculously raise groundwater levels and/or restore polluted water to drinking quality... let's just say that the concept of unlimited growth will always be a pipe dream, and nothing else.
In fact, I'd go so far as to state that this much should be obvious to anybody, even a high school drop-out: you cannot have unlimited growth in a system with limited resources.

 

[AcornThornpicker]

Sustainability - a New Age concept?

[...]

The internet has failed again. I don't blame you, but I do hold your links to Wikipedia against you. = P

Sustainability is a fundamental concept of everything -- if it isn't sustainable, it is not tenable in the remotest sense beyond our own noses. Economics revolves around this -- at the basic macroeconomic level there are trade-offs between the short term and the long term, and it's all about balancing the two interests. There is no unlimited growth -- there is short term growth at the expense of the long term, or exponentially decreasing long term growth at the expense of the short term.

The particular item you've seized for that judgement is in response to the idea in the Zeitgeist films [I think it was the second one] which posits that there IS no new wealth, only increasing debt, which is a ridiculous idea that assumes that for every new worker, some old worker must stop working, and oil must deplete as quickly as solar panels and wind farms are constructed.

I mentioned "the new age concept of sustainability". Not the new age concept of "sustainability"; I thought that was clear because, as you said, "sustainability" as a concept is hardly something revolutionary. The red group of cats vs the red group of cats -- obviously not all cats are red, so why would you ever draw that conclusion except to set up a strawman? The words on the screen didn't convey my appropriate stress when I said "the new age concept of sustainability", so sorry about the ambiguity. Sustainability is a fundamental reality and one that we're realizing slowly, but the idea that Zeitgeist and the like preaches about overthrowing the system, hitting "reset", and damning the established system because some particular irksome thing is wrong with it is fundamentally a)next to impossible to ever be implemented and b)ridiculously short sighted, and in this tragically spreading case, funded on reasoning that is not correct.

Clearer now?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Absolutely! Thanks for clearing that up - and delivering at least a slight crack to one of the most persistent stereotypes in my mindspace.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You know, one of those days I'll acually go and watch Zeitgeist ....











And Expelled ...














And ...

































As if!

 

[AcornThornpicker]

Absolutely! Thanks for clearing that up - and delivering at least a slight crack to one of the most persistent stereotypes in my mindspace.

Lovely! Sorry if the post rang a little too strong -- whether or not economists are cold-blooded robots, I didn't want you thinking that we were also fools. ;-)

 

[hamashiachagape]

You know, one of those days I'll acually go and watch Zeitgeist ....











And Expelled ...














And ...

































As if!

Or you'll just run away and hide.

 

[hamashiachagape]

The internet has failed again. I don't blame you, but I do hold your links to Wikipedia against you. = P

Sustainability is a fundamental concept of everything -- if it isn't sustainable, it is not tenable in the remotest sense beyond our own noses. Economics revolves around this -- at the basic macroeconomic level there are trade-offs between the short term and the long term, and it's all about balancing the two interests. There is no unlimited growth -- there is short term growth at the expense of the long term, or exponentially decreasing long term growth at the expense of the short term.

The particular item you've seized for that judgement is in response to the idea in the Zeitgeist films [I think it was the second one] which posits that there IS no new wealth, only increasing debt, which is a ridiculous idea that assumes that for every new worker, some old worker must stop working, and oil must deplete as quickly as solar panels and wind farms are constructed.

I mentioned "the new age concept of sustainability". Not the new age concept of "sustainability"; I thought that was clear because, as you said, "sustainability" as a concept is hardly something revolutionary. The red group of cats vs the red group of cats -- obviously not all cats are red, so why would you ever draw that conclusion except to set up a strawman? The words on the screen didn't convey my appropriate stress when I said "the new age concept of sustainability", so sorry about the ambiguity. Sustainability is a fundamental reality and one that we're realizing slowly, but the idea that Zeitgeist and the like preaches about overthrowing the system, hitting "reset", and damning the established system because some particular irksome thing is wrong with it is fundamentally a)next to impossible to ever be implemented and b)ridiculously short sighted, and in this tragically spreading case, funded on reasoning that is not correct.

Clearer now?

I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to New Age thought.

Actually the principle of identity would state they were the same thing, as I'm continuing in my intellectual honesty.

 

[hamashiachagape]

"Peter Joseph" [his two middle names are used to protect his family from threats] is behind the movement. I'm not going to watch it, but there's a documentary about him, apparently. Who is Peter Joseph? A Film by Charles Robinson

<<[...] the Zeitgeist Film Series as a whole has a dedicated social intent to create awareness about the world we share, the problems we face, along with what we can do to make it better as a collective species.>>

His grand aim is something he has called a "Resource-Based Economy", which basically rests on new age concepts of sustainability and a utopian social system that we can bring into existence.


Having attended more than just the introductory macroeconomics course I can safely say that the creator does not fully understand the economy, which is surprising given his background in equity trading and leads me to believe that he is intentionally misleading his followers.... that, or he actually doesn't know which is surprisingly a little more disconcerting. Having read on "Tertullian" I'm fairly unwilling to take serious their claims of religious theft.... and those two questionable sections lead me to actively disbelieve the rest of their work without personal verification.

Still, it's a little entertaining if you can see the strings. If you're really curious, my favourite economist, when asked on the spot how the economy was creating an endless cycle of debt [with arguments from the film], managed to shoot down completely that portion of the film with four words: "People create new wealth". It might require a bit of elaboration, but those words summarize exactly what's missing from the Zeitgeist doomsday version of the economy.

So, um, nothing to see there, folks!
</end derailment>

Re: "The Christ Myth" -- I love that terrible set and want it.

As has been said, an argument from silence is pretty silly. I thought that was the Theist's argument -- "There's no proof against God, so He must exist unless you can prove otherwise!"

And we all know Jesus was born on the 6th of January, obviously.

I don't agree with the idea that there never was some fellow called Jesus of Nazareth, but I do support his trying to shoot down those ridiculous "copycat" ideas.

Everyone keeps getting closer to the idea of this Perfect Christ, so the ultimate realization MUST be false! ...I know the opposite is an argument ad populum, but "Many cultures develop this idea ---> must be false" sounds... well, it sounds like hipster apologetics, really. They liked Eternal Salvation through the Shed Blood and Resurrection of their Incarnate God BEFORE it was cool.

The argument against Zeitgeist is that it is a genetic fallacy. Try to keep up here. The copycat thing doesn't make any sense as Yeshua had no contact with these other nations in question (especially the ridiculous arguments about Quetzecoatl). All, and that means ALL evidence is of a later date, after Yeshua's life, up to 100 years in most cases. If ANYBODY copied, it was the other nations copying off of Messianic understanding.

You have several things wrong. The argument is not "there is no argument against God, therefore God exists." Although that is evidence for his existence.

The actual default position is that nobody has the capability to refute God and God does not need to be proven. Philosopher Alvin Platinga refers to this as a "basically proper belief." He exists despite what ANY finite individual thinks. And all other positions are self refuting. Therefore God exists (either-or principle taken into consideration) because Theism becomes the Philosophically default position. There is evidence for God's existence, and Atheists seem to always want to attack strawman positions for those arguments, and evidential support. Evidence for instance is that nearly 90% of the population agrees there is a God. Less than 9% of the population agrees otherwise. That is one argument. I'd say Creation also proves it.

Actually, see Exodus 40. The word "tabernacled" is the same word for "dwelt" in John 1. Hyppolitus mentions that Yeshua was born on March 20, 6 B.C. The January argument runs into the same problems as the December 25th argument. March 20, 6 B.C. of that year was Aviv 1. The same as the Jewish New Year, as described in one of Jonathan Cahn's lectures, which pitted the rabbinical material, early church father tradition and Exodus 40, tying this from 2 Chronicles into Luke. Yeshua was born on Aviv 1.

And

 

[hamashiachagape]

Just one: have you sat down and read through Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes. On investigation of Doherty's understanding, his background is in Mathematics. Ben Witherington III has gone on record as saying that Doherty is no Historian. Also JP Holding critiques him at Tektonics.org. See here - Earl Doherty, Jesus Puzzle, Unable to Answer Criticisms

Earl Doherty, Jesus Puzzle 200 Silences Refuted

Earl Doherty. His Jesus Puzzle Refuted

This was actually the final guy I investigated before putting away the Christ Myth for good.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Don't worry. It's the atheist equivalent of a Chick tract: lots of obvious nonsense mixed in with a couple of half-truths, topped off by a truckload of hare-brained conspiracy theories.

Stay as far away from that one as you can.

Yes I agree. Though it is becoming a very popular argument amongst Athiests today. It should be understood at the same time.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Not to derail things any further, but does anyone know who is behind Zeitgeist? And what sort of worldview he or she has?

It seems that "Ramtha's School of Enlightenment" (a strange New Age cult) was behind What the *Bleep* Do We Know?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Peter Joseph was the main contributer.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Sustainability - a New Age concept?

If that's what they teach you in economy classes, that just reinforces my impression that Economics is merely another ideological meta-narrative these days, and not much of an academic discipline after all.

As for "people create new wealth": unless they somehow re-grow non-regenerative resources AND miraculously raise groundwater levels and/or restore polluted water to drinking quality... let's just say that the concept of unlimited growth will always be a pipe dream, and nothing else.
In fact, I'd go so far as to state that this much should be obvious to anybody, even a high school drop-out: you cannot have unlimited growth in a system with limited resources.

Nothing wrong with Metanarratives, but there is something wrong with Bad Economics. I have a bachelor's degree in Accounting if anybody would like to know, and those views make absolutely no sense.

 

[Ayersy]

The actual argument is that nobody has the capability to refute God and God does not need to be proven.

Why?

Why is God apparently excempt from having to prove himself?

... Because you say so? Not a valid argument.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'm sorry I gave Atheism and Agnosticism way too much credit.

See here - "
According to a study by Barna Research:

"... roughly 7% of the adult population - approximately 14 million people - describe themselves as atheistic or agnostic."

Atheism, Agnosticism, the Brights, Humanism, etc.

Gallup shows these statistics Largest Religious Groups in the USA

48% of the population of America has a favorable attitude towards Atheists. - Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists - Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted

Basically, Atheists practically do not exist.
​

 

[hamashiachagape]

Why?

Why is God apparently excempt from having to prove himself?

... Because you say so? Not a valid argument.

I don't care what I say. Why should God have to prove himself to anybody by your standards, which are probably not logically met anyways? For instance one argument that persists by Atheists and Agnostics that I encounter often, and we look at this as a strawman, is that God must show tangible existence of himself. What one forgets is by definition God is intangible on a Biblical understanding. So if God were to do this, he would be refuting himself, and he would cease to be God. These conditions are not logically met. This evidence may refute some gods, but it does not refute the God of the Bible, nor Allah (actually alilah), nor Zoroastrianism and others (though I can show you ways to refute Alilah and Zoroaster too). Secondly, Yeshua can be seen as tangible evidence of God's existence when one looks at his resurrection. That should be more than sufficient. Ultimately it must be remembered though that God is the one making the rules.

Fact is, there are some clear evidences for the existence of God. Order, which requires a pre-existing mind, exists and this demonstrates that definitionally that God exists (Principle of Identity may be utilized). His existence is also self evident since all other philosophical positions fail. We are compelled to point to Romans 1:20 "20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." In parallel we may also point to the Anthropological argument for the existence of God.

By his grace, he does reveal himself to mankind though because God is a God of love definitionally.

I doth believe you protesteth too much. I pray you may be open to seeing God as the Supreme Being that he truly is, a lover and carer of the universe and his creation. He loves you (from an Ancient Near East understanding, this means tough love too), even when you don't acknowledge him back. And he lets you make your decision as to whether to follow him or not. It is free will. He encourages his creation to think. 1 Thesalonians 5:21 "21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil." If one truly gets to know who God is, I don't see why anybody would turn him away. Most people see God as wrath happy. There are only 7 things described in the Bible that make God angry. God is slow to anger, but he does not like his creation in rebellion. Eventually he does step in. The simple and basic 10 Commandments may help someone see why. His rules are to help guide you and give you a proper understanding on how to live a well balanced life, and in no way could harm an individual. And they are not too hard to follow either. Deuteronomy 30:11-14.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Okay, so let us get back to the topic at hand, which is the Christ Myth.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Okay, so let us get back to the topic at hand, which is the Christ Myth.

You chose the worst possible example to "debunk" the Christ myth.

"Zeitgeist" is not a scholarly source, and you will find that even scholars who *do* maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is a syncretic life-death-rebirth deity will refute and discard this movie just as readily as I do.

It's as if you tried to debunk Christianity by using Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons". Just because some overeager New Ager commits the secular equivalent of pious fraud, making up most of his "evidence", that does not tarnish the whole theory - no more so than the "facts" conferred in Chick tracts tarnish all of Christianity.

Personally, I do consider it possible that there was a historical Jesus. But I'd still maintain that the god-man portrayed in the New Testament is mostly mythological.
Why?

1. Because there is no mention of any of the extraordinary events related to Jesus in secular sources. (And no, the obviously fraudulent Testimonium Flavianum doesn't count.)

2. Because the Pauline Epistles, earlier than the gospels, do not provide evidence of a recent historical Jesus, but emphasize that only the "risen Christ" Paul claims to be in communication with is of any importance.

And most importantly -

3. The story of Jesus *does* show strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Not the kind of xerox-copy nonsense that the creators of "Zeitgeist" came up with, naturally, but a sufficient amount to cast doubt upon the supposed originality of Christianity.

IMO, Christianity was the 1st century equivalent of today's UFO-cults, freely "borrowing" motifs, terms, rituals and so forth from extant sources and giving them a new spin.

I'd claim that this is further corroborated by the fact that the notion of God impregnating virgins and fathering mortal offspring is absolutely anathema to the Jews, and that the messiah does not even remotely resemble the life-death-rebirth deity Christians worship as God Incarnate.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Basically, Atheists practically do not exist.

...in America, yes.

In Sweden, where I've lived since 2003, maybe 40%(?) are either atheist or agnostic. It's a large percentage.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Europe in general is (thankfully) moving away from the sort of evangelical literalism that's so popular in the US. Looking across the Atlantic, we almost feel as if the dark ages were returning, with glaring superstitions propping themselves up in opposition to the natural sciences.