Oh, great, a movie review by a so-called skeptic. Thank you for posting!One analysis fo the movie. Each should research and judge for themselves.
"So, the conclusion is, the film is 99.999% a complete lie, complete farce, made up garbage.
But hey, you don't have to believe me, I'm not the one making outrageous claims that religion is only meant to control you, and that it is connected with 9/11, which in turn with the Federal Reserve will give you a microchip... with no evidence of consequence."
Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked - Introduction - Zeitgeist Exposed - Skeptic Project
Well, the section about Jesus is probably around 90% bs...l hope it is really CT because it seems horrible
I don't really watch videos on the Internet anymore. Is there a review of this show from a non so-called skeptic? I ask because the people that routinely call themselves skeptics nowadays are anything but skeptics - evidenced by JREF.your welcome.
I basically dislike vids that are bs.
Noticed you didn't refute that the vid was bs.
Thanks for playing.:mrgreen:
From the OP, I searched for an analysis of the vid. The one I posted is what I found and read.I don't really watch videos on the Internet anymore. Is there a review of this show from a non so-called skeptic? I ask because the people that routinely call themselves skeptics nowadays are anything but skeptics - evidenced by JREF.
Well, the section about Jesus is probably around 90% bs...
Ya, I dunno, I don't fully remember all the parts, but there was a serious lack of explanation / sourcing that would lead to those conclusions.Actually, the section about Jesus seems fairly accurate, with the exception of the statement that the "person whom we know to be Jesus probably never even existed." There was likely a noted Essene preacher from the Galilee region of Israel named Jesus; however, it certainly appears that a standard template was used to craft the popular Jesus mythos familiar to Christianity, beginning with the December 25th birthdate.
To be fair, there was also a lot of loose (and even false) interpretations of some of the ancient myths and religious figures mentioned, so "accurate" is probably not the best description of Part I. However, the gist of the discussion, namely that all the hocus pocus (i.e.: exodus story, virgin birth of Jesus, walking on water, resurrection, etc.) mentioned in the Bible fits right in with the fantasy myths common to most religions of the day. Hence, it is no less ridiculous to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus than it is to believe that Romulus was the son of Mars, that Mithra was cut out of a slab of rock by a bolt of lightning, or that "Krishna was born without a sexual union, but by divine "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki." (Krishna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)Ya, I dunno, I don't fully remember all the parts, but there was a serious lack of explanation / sourcing that would lead to those conclusions.
That section, more than any other part came across like bs is all I'm saying.