First off, I recommend that everyone watch this film - not because it will change your world view forever (thought it might) or that you should live in fear and anguish (or open revolutionary rebellion) and certainly not to believe everything as absolute truth - but simply because it may educated you on some historically significant ideas and actions that may enlighten you enough to encourage further investigation.
The first section, which offers a view of the Jesus myth, is an honest rethinking backed by significant data, but I believe this data was a manipulated to discredit Jesus as a historical character in order to discredit the establish church. I my self do not believe in the establish church or any religious institution, however I do believe in the historical character of Jesus Christ. If you are a christian you don't have to worry a little research will help you debunk the Jesus myth. I have been exposed to teleology my whole life and have been extremely educated on this subject and was not surprised by the information that was given. Let me point out what may have been a intentional mistake to discredit Jesus as a historical character. the film suggests that
PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.), TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.),
and LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.) do not provide enough or substantial fact and so discredit Jesus' historical figure, quoting "each one of there entries consists of only mere sentences as best and only refer to Christ, Chrestus, Christus, which in fact is not a name but a title which means the anointed one" end of quote.
that is a false statement. Pliny, Tacitus, and Lucian provide more than just names
:
TACITUS: (55-117 A.D.)Cornelius Tactitus is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
PLINY THE YOUNGER: (112 A.D.)Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worship Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government recognized Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and sets a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified Christos sage, and live after his law.
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church. -- New Advent.
BABYLONIAN TALMUD: (Completed in the 6th Century A.D.)The Babylonian Talmud is a Rabbinic commentary on the Jewish scriptures (Tanach: Old Testament). They are a look into what a hostile source was saying about Jesus. They couldn't deny his miracles so they claim that it was sorcery rather than admit to what was a known fact. They also admit that Yeshu (Hebrew for Jesus) was hanged (Crucified: Luke 23:39, Galatians 3:13).
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery (an admission of his miracles) and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
The Babylonian Talmud, vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a.
I would also like to point out that the historicity of Alexander the Great and his military conquests is drawn from five ancient sources, none of whom were eyewitnesses. Although written 400 years after Alexander, Plutarch’s
Life of Alexander is the primary account of his life.
Since Plutarch and the other writers were several hundred years removed from the events of Alexander’s life, they based their information on prior accounts. Of the twenty contemporary historical accounts on Alexander, not one survives. Later accounts exist, but each presents a different “Alexander,” with much left to our imagination. But regardless of the time gap of several hundred years, historians are convinced that Alexander was a real man and that the essential details of what we read about his life are true.
Keeping Alexander as a reference point, we’ll note that for Jesus there are both religious and secular historical accounts. even skeptics must not dispute that Jesus Christ really lived.
In spite of skeptic’s views, and those of a few other fringe scholars, the consensus of most historians is that the Gospel accounts give us a clear picture of Jesus Christ. Whether the New Testament accounts are trustworthy is the subject of another article and debate, so we will look to non-Christian sources for our answer as to whether Jesus existed. and there is a lot to account for.
I think the film dose not negate any of the spiritual teachings of any religion or spiritual practice but simply questions whether anyone should take a literal interpretation and adopt it as a guide to truth and life. A fair question. I also believe that it is an attempt to discredit the established church namely the catholic roman church, as part of corporate tyrannical institutions that in my opinions have nothing to do with the poor Jewish carpenter, who's agendas was extremely simple and very different from the agendas of the established church.
The "fear" section (II) is completely viable. There are too many unanswered questions regarding the FACTS surrounding the 9/11 attack to be ignored. Michael Ruppert's "Crossing The Rubicon" is a great way to get most of the disturbing but accurate details.
There is a paranoid aspect to the final moments (perhaps justified) about microchip implantation into the masses, but the work covering the economic history of our country is true. As is the part on war creation. I wish he had skipped to futuristic chip stuff and instead covered more about the rise of disaster capitalism. Read Naomi Klien's "The Shock Doctrine" - essential reading.
Watch this movie with on open, curios and skeptical mind and use it as a springboard to further inquiries. Get Smart!
