(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.

(2) Many people argue that Gerald Massey was just a poet whose findings were not respected during his time. Do you feel his findings are credible even though his work has not made it to the mainstream?

-Firstly, throughout history, all of the most important realizations which have constituted social change have come from a suppressed few. For example, Galileo defended that the earth moved around the sun, and due to dated biblical assumptions (Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved") he was nearly killed.
The point being that when you have an Established Institution, such as Christianity, very few, especially in earlier times because of the religiously derived laws, have had the courage to speak of new information that is contrary to the Establishment. Those who do are often ignored, marginalized and then attacked.
In that regard, it should be well understood that those with findings which would institute social change and challenge the existing orthodoxy, will ALWAYS be in the minority, until enough time passes for the tension to subside, and reason to prevail. This goes for all walks of society. The bottom line is that Established Institutions are there to perpetuate themselves and they will fight everything, fact or farce, to maintain their identity and to suppress conflicting information.

-Secondly, Gerald Massey studied Egyptology for 30 years and was not alone. He had intellectual support from two of the top Egyptologists of his time: Samuel Birch and E.A. Wallis Budge - both widely respected, and the latter a Christian, in fact. Since that time there have been many other scholars who have worked with the subject, even though it has been still very much suppressed.

-Thirdly, I am always amused when I see people attack Massey for some projected persona they assume. Some say he was just a "poet"...or a dreaded "freemason" or other such irrelevant, not inquisitive, judgmental write offs. If anyone really wants to know the genius of Gerald Massey, I suggest "Ancient Egypt Light of the World" and "A Book of Beginnings".

3) Isn't the scenario presented regarding the micro-chipping of the population a fulfillment of prophecy from Rev. 13?

Rev. 13 is a vague, exotic notion of the end of the world, including a mark on the hand or head and in turn the return of Jesus Christ.
The logic of an electronic tracking system as dictated by the ruling elite is a fundamental progression, and has zero relationship to a written "prophecy" from over a thousand years ago which can be interpreted in 1000s of ways, semantically.

Until Jesus returns, which is not going to happen, as we don't live in a science fiction reality, prophecies are not only a waste of time and just plain ridiculous, they are also very destructive because they institute an 'expectation', which psychologically conditions a person, consciously or not, to create/allow the conditions for such a possibly destructive event to occur.

4) If you don't believe in god, what else is there?

We as a species grow, learn and slowly shed old incorrect beliefs. There is no "final understanding" as life is a constantly changing and evolving process. What we do have is a logical basis of understanding how life operates. The idea of a personified creator or god serves no function anymore, and has zero basis in reality, with no provable, tangible evidence to support it.

There have been 1000s of gods over the course of the past 10,000 yrs... What makes you think that "Jesus and His Father" are the end all? It makes no sense and there is a sea of evidence to support a non-superstitious understanding of reality through the analysis of natural phenomenon. Theism is over. We need to move on and progress our human family without the "spiritual racism" that religion perpetuates.

How life got here is an understanding that is irrelevant, for odds are, life is energy and has always existed, and does not end. What we do in life through understanding life's processes is the true philosophy and the faster people stop looking to some invisible power that doesn't exist for guidance, judgement and afterlife, the faster "heaven" will dawn on the planet earth. The true guidance comes from within, for we are nature itself. We are all brother and sister and we are symbiotically related to all other life forms in the most literal and profound ways. We are God. Period. There is no Evil and no Good- these are false notions based on biased ideals from a very primitive time in our evolution. The fact is we are one family living on the planet in harmony with nature, and religion serves ONLY the perpetuation of division and hatred. Also, the idea that the human race needs religion to be "moral" is absolutely absurd. We are not simply "guilty" or have perpetual "Sin" as certain religions would like you to believe. We are perfect. The reason the world is such a disaster is not because of some innate human flaw. It is a disaster because separatist, racist institutions like Religion, Nationalism and thus Politics, continue to corrupt each generation with the same age old value systems, designed only for social subservience and the perpetuation of the status quo.

1) If the government was responsible for 9/11, why were there warnings by the other countries?

To understand this, one needs to examine the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing where an "FBI informant" is on record as being the one who gave the "terrorists" the explosives to use in the attack.

What happens is that the agents of the "US Black Operation Division" ( we will call it ) infiltrate "rogue" networks and then manipulate the situation in their favor. They needed an evidence trail. That is why a few of the 9/11 "hijackers" attended flight schools and the like (even though most failed). They needed to set up their "patsies".

Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been given 2 GAG Orders to never speak of her work for the FBI, has denoted that in her work she came across intelligence eluding to the fact that a few of the hijackers were actually being PROTECTED by the State Department. Naturally, her testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission was ignored and not included in their final report. Today she faces jail time if she ever reveals any real information.

In other words, the groups who do this do not do it alone. They have to create a set of people to take the blame. However, the independent workings of these patsies, whatever their ideas about the truth are, are not isolated, so it is logical that other countries' intelligence services could pick up some chatter. This also explains why the Bush Admin. told the Intelligence agencies to "back off" the Bin Ladens in Jan 2001. This also explains the absurdly obvious lies that Bush, Rice and Cheney made when asked if there were any warnings (they denied there were) even though dozens, if not over a 100 warnings, were given.

2) If the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77, where are the passengers?

This is common question and the answer is - we don't know.
However, consider this: In Operation Northwoods, an official 1962 government plan to stage terror attacks against its own citizens to instigate war with Cuba, it included:

"Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday"

The bottom line is that we do not know what happened, but we do know what didn't happen.

3) World Trade Center 7 had an awkward design due to the Con Ed substation it was built upon. Coupled with the damaged caused by the debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers and the 2 fires on the floors, wasn't it a structural failure, as opposed to a controlled demolition?

The fact of the matter is a building like WTC 7, a 47 story structure with massive central support columns, could not be universally affected by:

1) 2 small fires on different floors
2) Damage to the SW corner of the building.

These are non-related and the issue with the Con Ed substation is irrelevant, as if the structure was sound as it was, no fire or corner damage is going to alter anything universally. All modern buildings maintain a system of redundancy as well.

In order for that building to come down in the way it did, the central support columns had to have been cut in harmony. This is the only way a building can collapse into its own footprint. The fires are pointless as there is no way two/three small fires would take a building down from top to bottom at freefall speed. The damage to the SW corner of the building would have initiated collapse in the direction of least resistance (in the direction of the weakness). That did not happen. WTC 7 came down at free fall speed perfectly into it own footprint. The only process that exists that can create this effect is with the use of timed explosives placed at critical central support columns. This NEVER occurs in nature in the form of a structural failure. There is no building in history that has collapsed like this without the use of explosives and there never will be.

For more info. we suggest watching Richard Gage's Presentation: "How The Towers Fell"

1) Isn't the Income Tax Law stated in Title 26 of the IRS code?
Wasn't the 16th Amendment fully ratified? Do I have to pay taxes?

(A) The Income tax is not applicable to the wages of a person for wages paid for a service is Barter and this by all precedent set via the Supreme Court is not "taxable income". There is no statute for the average wage earner to pay taxes- just for corporate gains. (B) Even if there was a law, it would be unconstitutional for you are being forced to be a witness against yourself by the mandatory filing and signing of the return (5th amendment), which is why in the code is says discreetly that the filing is "voluntary", even though it isn't practiced as such. (C) What is codified in Title 26 does not make the average person liable to pay income tax.

In order for there to be taxable domestic income, all of the following
must occur:
1. One must receive a taxable "item" of income such as compensation, interest, rents, etc. (per 26 USC 61 and following).
2. The "source rules" must categorize the income as domestic income (per 26 USC 861(a) and 26 CFR 1.861-2 through 1.861-7).
3. The income must derive from a "specific source or activity"which is taxable (per 26 USC 861(b) and 26 CFR 1.861-8 and following).

(D) As far as the 16th amendment, it was not even remotely close to legal ratification, therefore voiding the whole thing as unconstitutional.
See:
"The Law That Never was" by Bill Benson for more info on the 16th Amendment.

Challenge:
http://livefreenow.org

As far as paying taxes, yes, you have to pay taxes... not because you are legally bound to, but because the Establishment Courts ignore the illegality of the issue. There are numerous cases of individuals who have been acquitted on the grounds that the court could not prove the law. However, none of these have been powerful enough to incite public opinion to take a stand. There have been many who have fought the system with a certain degree of success but if you do choose to challenge your personal income taxes, you need to be VERY prepared. We recommend this free Book by Conklin to begin.