This is a video that is about 10 minutes long. If anyone has knowledge about this kind of thing and can respond I would be interested in what you had to say.
Thank you.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#topic=Fine Arts&url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DG3i6UwVkP6M
Really would like some feedback.
Re: Really would like some feedback.
Paul,
Could you give a bit of info as to what the video is about? And would you mind checking the link?
- I clicked on it, and it was just an optical illusion thing - a moving cat or something, quite interesting, but no video...then my computer crashed.
It may have been co-incidence, but I am hesitant to try the other address under your actual link.
Could you give a bit of info as to what the video is about? And would you mind checking the link?
- I clicked on it, and it was just an optical illusion thing - a moving cat or something, quite interesting, but no video...then my computer crashed.
It may have been co-incidence, but I am hesitant to try the other address under your actual link.
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher
Re: Really would like some feedback.
I'm kinda slow at times, so I clicked the link three times.
The first time I got some quotes by Gandhi.
The second time I got this clock with the sound of a heartbeat as the seconds ticked by.
The third time I got a map of the world showing where CO2 emissions were being produced.
I don't get it.
The first time I got some quotes by Gandhi.
The second time I got this clock with the sound of a heartbeat as the seconds ticked by.
The third time I got a map of the world showing where CO2 emissions were being produced.
I don't get it.
Re: Really would like some feedback.
I am sorry, for some reason it only links the first part of the url. if you Copy the whole thing and paste it to your browser it takes you to the video.
The video is about the sun and the zodiac and about different religions throughout time that are all real similar to Christianity and they are all based on the sun and stars... it's really interesting, but I am not sure what to make of it.
The video is about the sun and the zodiac and about different religions throughout time that are all real similar to Christianity and they are all based on the sun and stars... it's really interesting, but I am not sure what to make of it.
Re: Really would like some feedback.
OK, so that's a clip from the movie Zeitgeist and I think it's dorky. What causes you to say, "I'm not sure what to make of it?"
Re: Really would like some feedback.
Well I guess I don't know much history. Is there any reality to what is said? Or is this guy just making this stuff up? I know that the 3 wise men in the bible were astrologist. Their role in the bible always seemed a little odd to me. So is there any validity to the video? Half truths twisted into an agenda?
Re: Really would like some feedback.
My last post was a little rude, plus I'm kind of bored right now waiting for something I have to do in a few hours, so I'm going to give you some feedback like you asked.
First, the video mentions how all people on earth have respect and adoration for the sun. Well, yeah, it's not like that was any surprise. The sun is a pretty important thing.
Then the clip goes on to talk about the stars and the constellations, and then teaches us that ancient people personified the stars creating myths about them. I'm not sure what point they were making there, but, OK.
Next they talk about the sun being the representative of the creator God, God's sun, the light of the world, the savior of humankind. Give me a break. Are they trying to say that the way we speak about Jesus, the Son of God, is really what people all along have said about the sun, God's sun? Like, we've just gotten the homophones mixed up? As if in every language the words for son and sun are so close and sound the same?
After that we get a list of other ancient gods: Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithra; all of whom were supposed to have been born on December 25, and born of a virgin. We're supposed to be uncomfortable, I think, because we can't help but see the parallel to the story of the birth of Jesus. The only problem is that no one believes that Jesus was actually born on December 25, and by just doing a quick google search, I discovered that not all of those listed were considered virgin-born, nor were they all considered to be born on December 25 or even on the winter solstice. So...hmph. I'm not inclined to take the rest of the video seriously, but I'm only halfway through and I'll press on.
Now we are examining Jesus' birth narrative. The video makes a case for the three stars in Orion's belt being the "Three Kings" who followed the Star of the East, Sirius, because all four of these stars are aligned on December 24. Which is fine, except, again, no one believes that Jesus was really born on December 24 or 25, and the Bible doesn't record three kings coming to see him. Matt. 2:1-2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men [Michelle: wise men, not kings, and no number given] from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Plus the filmmakers did the sun/son thing again...
The video goes on to examine the constellation Virgo, which it says is the Virgin Mary, and also says is called the house of bread, coincidentally the same thing Bethlehem means. So they conclude that the House of Bread is in the sky not on earth. Why would they conclude that? There IS and WAS a place called Bethlehem on earth, so why just discard it as the place of Jesus' birth? And why associate Virgo with Mary? I know that Mary was a virgin, but so are a lot of other women. I couldn't find through google a reference to the virgin of the Virgo myth giving birth, so why would anyone assume it's Mary?
We get this resurrection image: From the autumn equinox to the winter solstice, the sun moves toward the south and in the northern hemisphere the days get shorter and colder, creating a picture of death. Then on December 22, the sun stops moving south for three days and is in the vicinity of the Southern Cross constellation. Then on December 25, it starts moving northward again. So, the sun (which sounds just like the Son) dies on the cross, is dead for three days, then rises again. The only problem is that Jesus didn't die on the winter solstice, he died at Passover, in the spring. The video says that we don't celebrate until Spring because that's when the sun finally conquers the darkness and the days get longer than the nights. That's not what the Bible says about when Jesus died, however. John 19:14-16 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.
The disciples are supposed to be symbolic of the twelve constellations of the zodiac, which the "Sun" of God travels about with. First of all, they contradict themselves because at the beginning of the video they said the sun travels through the constellations of the zodiac, but now they are saying it travels about with them. They never actually show how these men are actually constellations. Not to mention that just a few minutes prior, they identified one of the houses, Virgo, as the virgin Mary. So some of the imagery has to do double duty?
Then they make a big point about the Bible being replete with the number twelve: 12 tribes, 12 sons of Jacob, 12 Judges of Israel, 12 Great Patriarchs, 12 O.T. Prophets, 12 Kings of Israel, 12 Princes of Israel. I'm not sure where they got all those; some of them have to be the result of pretty creative counting techniques. The number 12 does seem to be important in the bible, but I'm not sure why it has to correlate with the zodiac. I'll watch the rest of the video to see if I can find out why... Nope. They never explained it.
Finally we come back to the cross. They said it was never the cross of crucifixion, but was the cross made by separating the constellations of the zodiac into four groups of three. They say it's actually a pagan symbol of the sun, not the Son, but then the images they show are all of Christian buildings and artwork. If it was truly a pagan symbol and was as ubiquitous as they say, why didn't they show some pagan artifacts with the cross on them? All they showed was the same astrological chart over and over, which they finally modified to look like a cross.
This video, to me, was the least convincing video that I've seen that tried to convince me of ANYTHING.
First, the video mentions how all people on earth have respect and adoration for the sun. Well, yeah, it's not like that was any surprise. The sun is a pretty important thing.
Then the clip goes on to talk about the stars and the constellations, and then teaches us that ancient people personified the stars creating myths about them. I'm not sure what point they were making there, but, OK.
Next they talk about the sun being the representative of the creator God, God's sun, the light of the world, the savior of humankind. Give me a break. Are they trying to say that the way we speak about Jesus, the Son of God, is really what people all along have said about the sun, God's sun? Like, we've just gotten the homophones mixed up? As if in every language the words for son and sun are so close and sound the same?
After that we get a list of other ancient gods: Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithra; all of whom were supposed to have been born on December 25, and born of a virgin. We're supposed to be uncomfortable, I think, because we can't help but see the parallel to the story of the birth of Jesus. The only problem is that no one believes that Jesus was actually born on December 25, and by just doing a quick google search, I discovered that not all of those listed were considered virgin-born, nor were they all considered to be born on December 25 or even on the winter solstice. So...hmph. I'm not inclined to take the rest of the video seriously, but I'm only halfway through and I'll press on.
Now we are examining Jesus' birth narrative. The video makes a case for the three stars in Orion's belt being the "Three Kings" who followed the Star of the East, Sirius, because all four of these stars are aligned on December 24. Which is fine, except, again, no one believes that Jesus was really born on December 24 or 25, and the Bible doesn't record three kings coming to see him. Matt. 2:1-2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men [Michelle: wise men, not kings, and no number given] from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Plus the filmmakers did the sun/son thing again...
The video goes on to examine the constellation Virgo, which it says is the Virgin Mary, and also says is called the house of bread, coincidentally the same thing Bethlehem means. So they conclude that the House of Bread is in the sky not on earth. Why would they conclude that? There IS and WAS a place called Bethlehem on earth, so why just discard it as the place of Jesus' birth? And why associate Virgo with Mary? I know that Mary was a virgin, but so are a lot of other women. I couldn't find through google a reference to the virgin of the Virgo myth giving birth, so why would anyone assume it's Mary?
We get this resurrection image: From the autumn equinox to the winter solstice, the sun moves toward the south and in the northern hemisphere the days get shorter and colder, creating a picture of death. Then on December 22, the sun stops moving south for three days and is in the vicinity of the Southern Cross constellation. Then on December 25, it starts moving northward again. So, the sun (which sounds just like the Son) dies on the cross, is dead for three days, then rises again. The only problem is that Jesus didn't die on the winter solstice, he died at Passover, in the spring. The video says that we don't celebrate until Spring because that's when the sun finally conquers the darkness and the days get longer than the nights. That's not what the Bible says about when Jesus died, however. John 19:14-16 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.
The disciples are supposed to be symbolic of the twelve constellations of the zodiac, which the "Sun" of God travels about with. First of all, they contradict themselves because at the beginning of the video they said the sun travels through the constellations of the zodiac, but now they are saying it travels about with them. They never actually show how these men are actually constellations. Not to mention that just a few minutes prior, they identified one of the houses, Virgo, as the virgin Mary. So some of the imagery has to do double duty?
Then they make a big point about the Bible being replete with the number twelve: 12 tribes, 12 sons of Jacob, 12 Judges of Israel, 12 Great Patriarchs, 12 O.T. Prophets, 12 Kings of Israel, 12 Princes of Israel. I'm not sure where they got all those; some of them have to be the result of pretty creative counting techniques. The number 12 does seem to be important in the bible, but I'm not sure why it has to correlate with the zodiac. I'll watch the rest of the video to see if I can find out why... Nope. They never explained it.
Finally we come back to the cross. They said it was never the cross of crucifixion, but was the cross made by separating the constellations of the zodiac into four groups of three. They say it's actually a pagan symbol of the sun, not the Son, but then the images they show are all of Christian buildings and artwork. If it was truly a pagan symbol and was as ubiquitous as they say, why didn't they show some pagan artifacts with the cross on them? All they showed was the same astrological chart over and over, which they finally modified to look like a cross.
This video, to me, was the least convincing video that I've seen that tried to convince me of ANYTHING.
Last edited by Michelle on Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Re: Really would like some feedback.
Michelle,
Thank you for the excellent review, and for saving me the time and frustration of watching that video!
Thank you for the excellent review, and for saving me the time and frustration of watching that video!
Re: Really would like some feedback.
I saw a movie by Jordan Maxwell about a year ago of the same sort of effort to take away trust in Christianity and all other religions. Funny thing at the end though, the movie was pushing its own religion.
His clever idea (and he is very clever with words) was connecting the phonetics of "Noah's ark" with an Egyptian god or event sounding something similar "argha noa", the idea that the Hebrews got it from the Egyptians, then the Christians got it from the Hebrews. Well this only would have had any potential validity if the Hebrew and Greek also used the same sounds. But the sounds are different -- especially regarding the word for ark.
I have seen the same sort of nonsense when Maxwell was addressing other topics. He is a master of matching patterns but not of addressing reality.
The movie is called "The Naked Truth." This may be part of the effort to deceive the nations against Christians, as found in Rev 20.
His clever idea (and he is very clever with words) was connecting the phonetics of "Noah's ark" with an Egyptian god or event sounding something similar "argha noa", the idea that the Hebrews got it from the Egyptians, then the Christians got it from the Hebrews. Well this only would have had any potential validity if the Hebrew and Greek also used the same sounds. But the sounds are different -- especially regarding the word for ark.
I have seen the same sort of nonsense when Maxwell was addressing other topics. He is a master of matching patterns but not of addressing reality.
The movie is called "The Naked Truth." This may be part of the effort to deceive the nations against Christians, as found in Rev 20.
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com