Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
"That's the thing about ZG part 1, unless someone actually goes and reads up on the books that went into it then they won't actually know or understand the depth behind such claims. But even then, the only claims actually made in the movie is that when all of the evidence is weighed, Jesus 'probably' never existed in the first place. That's how PJ presents it. And he's right, considering the evidence Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary as presented in the mythos probably never existed in the first place. Once the mythology is peeled away there's nothing left at the core. "
Re the story of "Yeshua ben Pantera," who supposedly lived around 100 BC, even IF there was a real person there and his tale was integrated into the gospel story, it would be a tiny percentage of the New Testament figure. The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament would still therefore be a composite character made up of several figures, some possibly historical but most mythical - that's STILL a fictional character. As Massey said, "A composite of 20 people is no one."
But I think Acharya's brought up some good issues regarding "Jesus ben Pantera/Pandira" when she notes that Dionysus, whose epithet was "IES" was called the "son of the panther," which is what "ben Pantera" means. That would make Dionysus "Yeshua ben Pantera."
Sounds like just more mythmaking to me. But, again, even if this short tale were used in the creation of the gospel story, it's still only a small percentage of a composite and therefore FICTIONAL character.
Also, remember all the information Acharya's provided about gods supposedly walking the earth, like Osiris and Dionysus, that it's not THEM but their priests and representatives or their cults who migrate around. And artifacts like a god's birth or death place are parts of priestcraft going back thousands of years. Of course, everybody wanted this god or that to have lived among them, proving how "chosen" they were. There's a birth and death cave of Zeus on the Greek island of Crete - does that mean Zeus was a real person?
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
"Pay close attention around 1:45 and beyond to JF talking about Jesus as if he existed historically as a teacher, an evermist position to be precise."
It seems that TZGM has decided to do the same as so many others by claiming Jesus as their own. It is a monumental disappointment to watch TZGM take the 'go along to get along
' approach, rather than have the courage of their convictions to ZG1. It's in diametric opposition to Zeitgeist part 1 and therefore, completely inconsistent and counter productive. I cannot respect that.
They can't find a way to mention the mythicist position but, they can talk about Jesus as if he was a historical character? Why are we doing this then? Why are we wasting our time defending and continuing to further substantiate ZG1 when TZGM refuses to support us? In my view, Acharya is being used and taken for granted. We are expected to defend and substantiate ZG1 but the favor is not being returned at all and I'm not asking for much - just the bare minimum.
So, I get the sense that TZGM is funded by Fresco, which may explain why ZG1 has essentially been sabotaged and kicked to the curb - all due to one mans religious beliefs. I suppose it's safe to say that TZGM has been hi-jacked. Like I said earlier, there's something really weird about this and it makes me think of the malicious move by Matt Dillahunty to get Acharya removed from CSER. If that's the case and Fresco wanted the elimination of ZG1 because of his distaste for Acharya or her views, then TZGM just needs to be honest about it and admit it. That way Acharya can stop wasting her time defending ZG1 if she's not going to be appreciated for it and if it's never going to go anywhere with TZGM. However, Peter himself asked Acharya to write the Sourcebook so, this apparent elimination of Acharya S doesn't seem to be coming from him.
We are not the only ones to notice:
"The trouble began one morning over breakfast. As we sat and talked in a 71st Street restaurant, a background ‘issue’ came to the fore once more. Basically, Jacque and Roxanne do not like metaphysics. Anything spiritual or pertaining to the expansion of consciousness is anathema to The Venus Project. They even refer to popular spiritual ideas as “verbal masturbation”. We knew this harsh stance of theirs only too well from previous meetings but had not let it interfere with our collaboration. Yet it was becoming ever more clear, at least to us, that The Venus Project will not be able to deliver its healing promise all by itself but needs to be driven by raised consciousness and changed values...."http://earth2movie.blogspot.com
Let me try to explain this one last time. If they didn't want the Zeitgeist movement (which is really the Venus Project) to be connected to the Zeitgeist movies then they should never have named it 'The Zeitgeist Movement.' It's just basic common sense. They concede that they wanted to piggy-back on the popularity of the movies, which is fine until they try to claim that the Zeitgeist movement has nothing to do with the movies. That just seems schizophrenic ("a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements
") to most people and there's no way around that. They ruin their own credibility by doing that. I've read TZGM explanations for that but they just don't work. There simply will never be an explanation that can successfully put that to rest and they brought it all on themselves totally unnecessarily. It's an unfortunate strategic error. It would be in their own best interest to change the name asap. Or, one thing they could do as an option is consider the Venus Project (VP) one arm of TZGM. That way they could actually have more than one arm of TZGM at a time. Hypothetically, they could easily have a Mythicist Position Project (MPP) arm of TZGM too but, I won't hold my breathe.
"Everyone—Hindus, Muslims, liberals, conservatives—wants to claim Jesus as their own. Why? Because He casts a shadow across world history, and no one wants to acknowledge being aligned against His ideas."
- Dr. J.P. Moreland, "What Would Jesus Think or Do?"
"We are a Jesus-haunted culture that is so historically illiterate that anything can now pass for knowledge of Jesus."
- Dr. Ben Witherington, III, "Tomb of the (Still) Unknown Ancients"
- Intro to Who Was Jesus, page 1
"When one closely analyzes the situation, peeling away the mythological layers of the gospel story, there remains no core to the onion and no "actual historical Jesus" to whom to point. In reality, the myriad "historical Jesuses" of scholarship--usually represent products of the writer's most cherished qualities, not of serious scientific fact. As professor of Judaic and Religion Studies at Brown University Dr. Shaye Cohen remarks, "Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find..." ("From Jesus to Christ")"
- http://stellarhousepublishing.com/skept ... geist.html