Ajd da zanemarimo kritiku medija.
Evo ja ću sad dati svoj komentar na ono "scholarly responses" - dakle akademske kritike.
Imajte živaca da pročitate, jer i ja sam imao živaca da napišem, a koliko vidim i meni i vama je bitno.
Dakle, tačka po tačka (IZVINJAVAM SE ONIMA ŠTO NE ZNAJU ENGLESKI, ALI VJERUJEM DA IH JE OVDJE MALO):
Citat:Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on skepticism in the age of mass media, and the postmodern belief in the relativism of truth. He argues that this belief, coupled with a "clicker culture of mass media," results in a multitude of various truth claims packaged in "infotainment units", such as Zeitgeist, Loose Change, Poltergeist, or The Twilight Zone.26
Ovim ništa protiv Zeitgeist-a nije dokazano, ali ipak vrijedi istaći mišljenje osnivača udruženja Skeptika, koje je inače dosta uticajna institucija koja se bori protiv pseudonauke i raznih vazdušastih ideja i teorija. Dakle on Zeitgeist, stavlja u kategoriju "infotainment" - (riječ nastala kombinacijom information + entertainment) dakle informativna zabava - dakle nešto što ne bismo trebali mnogo ozbiljno da shvatamo. On dalje tvrdi kako se danas forsira relativna istina - dakle svako može zastupati neku svoju verziju relativne istine, a Zeitgeist je samo jedna od verzija.
Citat:Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist "a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop", an example of unethical film-making.27 She accuses Joseph of deceit through the use of unreferenced and undated assertions, and standard film-making propaganda techniques.
Dalje, mišljenje Džein Čapman je čak i mnogo radikalnije - ona tvrdi da je film čist AGITPROP, dakle agitacija + propaganda i da predstavlja primjer NEETIČKOG PRAVLJANJA FILMA, kroz korištenje dobro poznatih metoda propagande. Tu opet nema direktnih dokaza protiv filma, ali ona kao filmski producent, dobro može da uoči korištenje propagandnih tehnika koje običnom čovjeku promaknu.
Citat:While parts of the film are, she says, "comically" self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and use of Madrid bomb footage to imply it is of the London bombings (she approvingly cites a student journalist who calls it an "out and out lie") amount to ethical abuse in sourcing (in later versions of the movie, a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings). She finishes her analysis with the comment:
Ovdje ona dalje ukazuje na možda namjerno korišćenje snimaka iz Madrida dok se govorilo o Londonskim napadima, dakle podmetanje nekih stvari tamo gdje im nije mjesto, da bi se postigla jača emocionalna reakcija.
Citat:Thus legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.
Eto, to je za nju bilo dovoljno da izgubi povjerenje u film, jer se očigledno u filmu često probjegavalo emocionalnom manipulacijom. Zasad jedini pravi dokaz protiv filma je taj da su podmetali slike iz Madrida tamo gdje se govorilo o Londonu, ali to i nije neki dokaz, zato idemo dalje.
Citat:Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."28
S obzirom da je Kris Forbs, istaknuti predavač na odsjeku za antičku istoriju na univerzitetu, njegova tvrdnja da je "nevjerovatno koliko tvrdnji film iznosi koje jednostavno nisu tačne", ima itekakvu težinu. Što on u nastavku i dokazuje:
Citat:Examining some of the specific claims made by the film, Forbes points out that while there are parallels between the story of Jesus and many ancient mythological figures, many of the ones mentioned in the film are false, as are other aspects of the film's description of these myths. Forbes states that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin, and says that Ra was the Egyptian god of the sun, not Horus.
Zasad dakle, dvije čiste neistine u filmu:
1. Izis, suprotno tvrdnjama filma, NIJE bila djevica.
2. Ra je bio bog sunca, a ne Horus, kao što film tvrdi.
Citat:Similarly, neither Krishna nor Dionysus nor Attis were ever said to be born of virgins, as Krishna was the eighth child of his parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, and Dionysus' mother, Semele, had slept with Zeus.
Idemo dalje:
3. Suprotno tvrdnjama filma - ni Krišna, 4. ni Dionis, 5. ni Atis nisu rođeni od djevica, Krišna je bio osmo dijete svojih roditelja, a Dionisova majka je spavala sa Zevsom
Citat:Forbes asserts that Horus was not adored by three kings, and that neither he nor Attis were crucified nor resurrected.
6. Suprotno tvrdnjama filma - Horusa NISU obožavala tri kralja, niti je
7. Niti je Atis bio razapet
8. niti je vaskrsao.
Citat:Forbes and interviewer John Dickson, founder of the Centre for Public Christianity, took issue with what they perceived as an argument centered on the homophony between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun, and pointing out that those words are not homophonic in ancient Egyptian, Latin or Greek.
9. Riječi koje se odnose na sunce u staroegipatskom, latinskom i grčkom NE ZVUČE isto kao riječi koje se odnose na sina, suprotno tvrdnjama filma.
Citat:Forbes also points out that neither Horus, Attis nor Jesus were born on December 25, as the ancient Egyptian calendar did not include the month of December found in the Latin calendar, and that the date of Christmas is a celebratory tradition historically derived from Sol Invictus and Saturnalia, rather than the Bible.28
10. Suprotno tvrdnjama filma ni Isus
11. Ni Atis
12. Ni Horus, nisu rođeni 25. decembra.
A kao što sam na jednoj temi već pomenuo, proslava Božića nema biblijskog utemeljenja i predstavlja nastavak paganske tradicije da se proslavlja Sol Invictus i Saturnalia, a tome je samo pridodato hrišćansko značenje - proslave rođenja Hristovog.
Citat:Forbes also criticizes the movie's use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus did not exist, noting that the list of supposed contemporaneous historians alleged by the film to have not mentioned Jesus is actually a list of geographers, literature professors, poets, philosophers and writers on farming or gardening, who would not be expected to mention him, and that the modern sources cited in the film are either experts in fields other than ancient history, such as German literature, or uncredentialed amateur Egyptologists.
13. Ovo je dosad najjači dokaz protiv filma. Film se drznuo da tvrdi da Isus nije postojao. Iako danas svi ozbiljni istoričari tvrde da jeste. Neslaganja postoje samo oko detalja iz njegovog života . Pogledajte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Tu između ostalog stoji:
Citat:The majority of scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.
Sve je to u Vikipediji potkrijepljeno brojnim referencama.
14. Dalje, film je predstavio mišljenja geografa, profesora književnosti, pjesnika, filozofa, pa ČAK I ONIH ŠTO SU PISALI O BAŠTOVANSTVU I RADU NA FARMI, kao mišljenja ISTORIČARA.
Namjerno je citirao izvore:
1. od kojih se ionako ne očekuje da pominju Isusa
2. koji nemaju neki poseban kredibilitet
samo zato što
3. to odgovara njihovoj tvrdnji koju hoće da proguraju kako Isus nije postojao.
Idemo dalje:
Citat:Forbes challenges the film's allegation that Josephus' mention of Jesus was doctored by pointing out that Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, and that only one of these mentions is believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages, in order to change an already existing mention of him (see Testimonium Flavianum).
15. Film ističe jedan falsifikat koji ukazuje na pominjanje Isusa, od strane Josifa, a zanemaruje činjenicu da je Isus JOŠ JEDAN PUT POMENUT U ISTOM IZVORU, A ZA TO DRUGO POMINJANJE SE ZNA DA NIJE FALSIFIKAT.
Citat:Forbes also argues that while Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity, it was Theodosius I who made it compulsory later in the 4th century, and that contrary to the film's thesis, Constantine did not invent the historical Jesus, as early records show that his historicity was already a key element of early Christianity prior to Constantine's conversion to it
16. Suprotno tvrdnjama filma, car Konstantin NIJE izmislio istorijskog Isusa.
Zaključak:
1. Mediji (koje sam u ovom razmatranju zanemario), kao i mnogi akademski izvori, napadaju film zbog namjerne manipulacije, korištenja sumnjivih izvora, emocionalne sugestivnosti i propagande.
2. Pored toga ima 16 konkretnih dokazanih neistina u filmu, u dijelu koji se odnosi na religiju.
3. To sve zajedno, nalaže nam da budemo vrlo oprezni u prihvatanju bilo čega što taj serijal filmova iznosi, čak i u onim dijelovima koji nisu pokriveni ovim kritikama i na koje ZASAD nisu izneseni kontraargumenti.
Hvala na pažnji!
