Hey guy's I was able to find Sturluweski's The Zeitgeist Movement and the Historical Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction
on the internet free of charge. I have uploaded the file
to google docs and I was hoping anyone might want to check it out if they want. Here are some excerpts which give you an idea of what you are going to be dealing with.
Justin was a converted pagan. He was very familiar with the various myths which existed in his day and were held by his contemporaries. He was a man of great understanding and is regarded as one of the greatest writers of the early Christian era. However, his work is not gospel. His writings were not inspired by God as were the Scriptures. As such, they may contain errors. These above quotations, however, would not fall under that category, for Justin is not confessing an association between Jesus and mythological figures. For one, he lived during a time when oral and written tradition regarding Jesus was fresh and relatively new. Time had not corrupted the elements which orthodox Christianity held to be true. There were heretical sects who claimed to be Christians, such as the Gnostics and the Marcions, but these and others like them were rejected by mainstream Christians for believing in truths which stood in contradiction to Scripture. If Justin had written with the intention of suggesting that the Gospels were borrowed from paganism, certainly other of the church fathers would have condemned
his words in their own writings, and you will find no such condemnation by any of the other early Christian writers. What Justin was doing here was appealing to the pagan
conscience. Christians, including Justin, were under attack by Rome and pagan Greeks.Rome had set in place the death penalty for professing faith in Christ. Below is the thrust
of Justin’s argument here:
“In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners. … And this is the sole accusation you bring against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the deadlibations and the savor of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices.”
In paraphrase, what he was saying was this: “Christians are being put to death for believing in a man who was the Son of God, born of a virgin. Yet you [pagans] who believe in myths like Perseus and Jupiter and hold to like beliefs, deem us worthy of death.” In short, he was inviting he who is without sin to cast the first stone. He was calling attention to their hypocrisy in condemning others for holding to the types of beliefs to which they held themselves. The argument he was using was a legal one: that if Christians held to beliefs which made them worthy of the death penalty, then pagans who hold to similar beliefs are equally worthy of the same. Justin was appealing to what he knew was fiction and myth in his process of defending that which he knew was the truth. Granted, his choice of wording would have been better. He could have used classifications other than “nothing different” and “in common” when discussing any
relationship between Jesus and Perseus or Jupiter. These statements, when taken by themselves, which is what the critic always does, could indicate exactly what the critic wants us to believe: that the Gospel was a rip-off of pagan myths. However, if we read further and look at the broader context, it becomes clear that Justin is not making any such claim. - Sturgulewski, Michael. The Zeitgeist Movement and the Historical Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction, 2009 pp. 87-88
Interesting use of Kettle Logic, eh?
The oldest written account we have of Noah’s flood was written by Moses, who lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. The account of the flood likely existed in oral and written tradition long before Moses, having been handed down through Noah and his descendants. - Sturgulewski, Michael. The Zeitgeist Movement and the Historical Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction, 2009 p. 97
Wow, so a world wide flood actually happened? (notable sarcasm)
Oh hey, check out some of the "scientific data" he uses to support his argument:
According to the best scientific research, using methods such as radiocarbon dating, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. But, as author R. Christopher explains, “… scientists are aware that C-14's half life (5,700 years) quantifies carbon based material to approximately 3692 B.C. They are also aware earlier dates must be obtained in unison with a preconceived, evolutionary, geological stratigraphy that only exists in carefully edited secular textbooks and are never quite so obvious when working within the actual geological column. … Science also posits a universe that is some 14-18 billion years old. It quantifies these estimates by way of extrapolating measured results of background radiation, etc., back to a theoretical, protracted point in time. But the premise on which these theories are constructed may be wrong—at least to some degree. Recent astronomical observations attest to a universe that is anything but homogeneous and isotropic as Big Bang proponents hypothesize. Science is also aware that we cannot precisely measure astronomical phenomena beyond a few hundred or thousand light years from earth without a series of assumptions being added to the equation. Anything further is no more than an estimated guess at distance or age.” - Sturgulewski, Michael. The Zeitgeist Movement and the Historical Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction, 2009 p. 98
Even if there was actually a world wide flood, what does this have to with ZG1.1? Me smells a very rotten red herring.
I believe not much more needs to be said, let me know what yah guy's think