[Reveling John]

Originally Posted by elirien

just check the info out my friend and especially acharya s. claims. there is no historical fact pointing to that as far as I have seen and if you got one get your butt over to zeitgeistchallenge.com and get your money of these dudes and please post your conversation with these people containing all info you have shared. I can't get myself to trust just Maxwell/Massey/Acharya S. rhetoric of existing evidence which I can't see.

I feel quite blessed by your informed skepticism, Elirien. It will only make the truth more clear for everyone. It is especially appreciated because of the heat you have to take from those who are still unsure of their own truth, and therefore attempt to bully you into believing (is this not what all religions do?).

Having said that, have you read this statement from the zeitgeist movie site?

(1) There are many in the religious community making films and posting websites denying the relationship of prior religions' influence on Christianity and maintain the disposition that Horus and others do not share the attributes the film claims. What is your response to this?

All Part 1 "debunkers" do one or more of the following:

(1) They attack / marginalize the messengers:
I have read countless posts where rather than reading any of the knowledge produced by a particular scholar, they simply dig up or invent some "flaw" in regard to that person and dismiss their work based on that association. For example, Thomas Paine, an American founding father, who was intimately aware of the Solar Nature of Jesus Christ and the fraud of Christianity, wrote about true Christian origins during his life. However, from the biased debunkers point of view, he was just a "Freemason" and therefore he must have some "Anti-Christian" bias and cannot be taken seriously. This is absurd. From another angle, people will marginalize certain scholars as "fringe" due to the fact that their information isn't "well known" and therefore not to be taken seriously. Little do they understand that the most important discoveries of our time always come from the minority. Historically, the majorities belief's have almost always been proven to be wrong over time.

(2) They do no real research:
Based on what I have seen, 95% of all "debunkers" who claim the information in Part 1 is unfounded have never opened anything other than the Bible and an Encyclopedia. 10,000 yrs of religious history is not going to be represented in any Encyclopedia beyond the most superficial assessments. (For instance, Horus had many permutations during the thousands of years he was portrayed, as opposed to the singular definitions one would find in an Encyclopedia) The other 5% have blindly read Establishment, Apologist literature on the Internet and nothing more. I have yet to be contacted by a single person who has, for example, read the total works of Egyptologist Gerald Massey or Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge on the subject and can argue any specific point. It must be understood, for example, that in regards to the Egyptian religion specifically, it wasn't until the late 1700s that the hieroglyphics where correctly interpreted to a high degree. This is important because for many centuries prior, this information was lost.

(3) They blindly ask "Where are the 'Primary Sources'?"
or ancient original texts. These individuals declare that 'If we cannot see it in the original texts, then it cannot be known as true'. Well, even though we do have many of the original texts from the Egyptian religion, many other religions have no available primary sources, and the information comes down through analysis of traditions that each religion practiced, as recorded by historians. The idea that the "original" must be available in order to prove truth is absurd and a double standard. Where are the original manuscripts of the Bible? And why are just four gospels used when it is well known that many dozens existed? Which does one believe? And what are the "primary sources" upon which the Bible stories were created? Who actually wrote them? Why isn't there any other historical documentation or supporting evidence? Is the whole species supposed to just believe one single book without any critical analysis or confirming evidence?
The bottom line is that analysis of religious ideas is not confined to what is "on paper" as all religions are slowly evolving structures where 'Tradition' is just as important as 'Scripture'. Many early religions did not have official texts but communicated their beliefs through traditional practice. The historians' documentation that account for these practices are all we have in certain instances. This should not be dismissed and should rather be taken in with everything else to reach a logical, cumulative understanding. Collectively, the primary sources that are available, coupled with the historian documentation, present an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the argument that Judaism, Islam and Christianity specifically, are manifestations of a gross misinterpretation of prior mythology. This mythology is rooted in the Solar and Stellar cults of the ancient world.

(4) They projected their own subjective interpretation of a piece of information by using "semantic manipulation". Rather than making an objective assessment about presented information in context, situations are narrowly defined and adapted to the debunkers cause by redefining the terms by which the meaning is extrapolated. This is classic religion. Seeing things that are not there, or only that which fits the dogmatic belief system, is a staple of the interpretive mess, self projecting "believers" maintain.

Anyone who questions any part of Part 1 should first go through the Interactive Transcript and then begin reading the sources. I also highly recommend Acharya's Companion Guide which elaborates on the Egyptian aspects more thoroughly. She has also produced
a Video Response.

Maybe this little bit should be posted amongst all the debunker forums so that they can adequately respond.