Zeitgeist and Christ Mythos Refuted time and time again
Zeitgeist the new “truth” movie being promoted by its makers on conspiracy message boards around the internet has been thoroughly debunked. It is disgusting to think the makers would try to sell it as a “truth movie” considering that it has dozens (over 50) easily provable factual errors. This is a slap in the face to the people who have died and will continue to do so in this patriot movement, we would expect nothing less than 100% accuracy of any movie in the 911 truth realm. We are talking about specific false claims that have been debunked for years, yet because this is the first time its been put into a form of a movie It has new life. This is not about a defense of a religion, it is about the integrity of information and our right not to be lied to by people claiming to be “truthers”
Lets take a look at the references the makers of this movie list as their sources for this information on their website: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
You will notice that they don’t site one single original source for the Jesus similarities they claim exist, you would think if it was true that the ancient texts showed such similarities, they would simply site these ancient texts. They don’t because they do not exist, Its quite simple, They instead offer books from authors such as Tim Leedom, Massey, Acharya, Doherty. This is laughable as a resource list if you have looked in to these claims. It’s the equivalent as me referencing Glenn Beck to prove there is no 911 conspiracy. I know its hard to believe that Tsarion or Alan Watt have been quoting known disinfo in their dissemination of this idea, but look for yourself, The numerous claims made by this movie concerning Jesus’s many similarities are either true or false. Before I move on here are the links to various debunkings of the “Christ myth”
Here is a great look at the ridiculous claims of most of the authors on that list (how they get away with this stuff is beyond rational thought)
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
I like the next site because no stone is left unturned in his search for more and more "Christ myths deities" to debunk, he has about 80 claims looked in to here:
Because this movie spent so much time claiming the similarities of hours and Jesus here is a specific debunking to show how clearly uninformed in mythology and how easily duped the makers of this film are in making this claim.
Now for Leedoms "Virishna" I wish there was more information to go on, but there is no such deity, at least in our earth's currently verifiable history. he apparently didn't bother with fact checking. Here is one account of the hunt for Virishna from an earlier source:
This movie also tries to make the claim that the Catholic churches pagan ideals, symbolism ,and rituals are somehow proof that Christianity itself is a part of this, nothing could be further from the truth. Lets take December 25th mentioned at least a dozen times in the film. The date of December 25th, which was officially proclaimed by the church fathers in A.D. 440, was actually a vestige of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, observed near the winter solstice, which itself was among the many pagan traditions inherited from the earlier Babylonian priesthood. Any person that doesn’t drool on themselves will tell you that nowhere in the bible is this date mentioned or inferred in ANY way. It is ludicrous to say that and pagan rituals involving this date can be linked to Christianity before the catholic church got a hold of the idea, that is, ALMOST 500 YEARS LATER. This illustrates that the Vatican has very little to do with true Christianity except for the obvious problem that they themselves always claim that they ARE Christianity.
Ill put it this way:
I know, the catholic church very well may be terribly evil, It stands to reason that that is where evil would want to set up shop. but lets please stop using its pagan based rituals to prove anything about Christianities founder. Yes, the "church" does seem to be used as a control mechanism…TO CONTROL YOUR PERCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. It seems so obvious. Jesus was actually one of the most anti-religious people that ever walked the earth He had compassion for every low down person he came into contact with, except for the "clergy" of his day. They were the only people he ever spoke a harsh word to..maby a few money changers too. The guy in the new testament would be freaking furious with an organization that claims the kind of things the Vatican claims.
Now, on to one of my favorite subjects, the Zodiac, or the Mazzaroth. This movie’s half truths and outright lies about the zodiac are sickening. The unfortunate thing is that you have to know a good deal about science, history, mythology, astronomy, and physics in order to start to even understand what is at play with this system. It is not as simple as many are led to think And because of a lack of diligent study and an overabundance of half assed research, people swallow what they are told without questioning or learning anything further.
I warn you, if you REALLY want to know what the zodiac is, if you want to know why the illuminated groups venerate the “as above so below” maxim, it wont be easy, and you will have to go to “school”, the long and the short of it is that the system, and its use and history, have been perverted to show and do things are believed only because of what you are NOT told. it is a matter of withholding information as much or more that mis-information. The truth is stranger than the half truth.
I will put some links here for those who wish to look into this, I encourage everyone who cares to do so:
You can argue with me about a lot of things here (and Im sure you will) but that this movie has a great deal of factual errors is not up for debate, as I said most of these claims were debunked 100 years ago. I am very worried about the future of this truth movement of which I am proudly a part of, I know that a division on dogmatic grounds is coming, and that all the great work we have done exposing and fighting this New World Order will be undone, by design. Be careful the ones proving the most stuff are often the ones to watch out for, they do this because they know that certain truths are coming out they know that they cant stop the awakening that’s coming. so they try to temper it by supplying us with the best real information through their agents and having them only lie about key elements, It is very insidious and very evil. We must be alert and challenge EVERYTHING even if you wanted to hear everything this movie had to say it does not make it true.
One more thing, As this movie suggest, I too believe we are at the end of an age. An astronomical age and a spiritual age, the precession of the equinoxes is a real thing,
They have tried to tell you that this impending change is a non-christian Idea, This IS the Idea! It is clearly described in the bible we will indeed change, as will this world, and why it must do so. but they are keeping you from seeing the origin of the warning! The bible has been 100% accurate in its writing history in advance, this is how has validated itself. Challenge this claim It is your duty, All the multidimensional beings around us know this too, they are not always to be trusted we do NOT know their motives.
P.S. I discuss what method the coming division might take here:
The religious part is exaggerated and twisted. Even my father who is a professor of ancient and biblical history noticed HUGE discrepancies between the true facts about the ancient myths/gods and the claims they made in the video. Also, their logic is not quite enough to prove anything. Yes, those other characters from myths and religions shared similarities with Jesus and the Sun myths, but not ALL that they stated were the same in the movie. Also, I think "The Sun of God" is going a bit too far and does not prove anything. Besides, even if there were similarities between some ancient religious beliefs and contemporary ones, this STILL is not enough to prove current religion false. Yes, many religions in the past taught the same morals as current religions, but that does not mean the story of Jesus is falsified.
Ok everyone! My father, professor of ancient and biblical history, has no come forth with many ideas regarding part 1 of Zeitgeist! (note, this is part of a letter he wrote to the Zeitgeist team)
He even makes note of what time in the movie he is referring to.
Everyone is welcome to debate over his thoughts
The Doctor: 11:50--The narrator states that "The Sun...was personified as a
representative of the unseen Creator or God." The early cultures
believed that the Sun WAS a god, and they did personify the Sun. But I
know of none that believed that there was an unseen God that the Sun
REPRESENTED, or that there was a God who owned the Sun. So it is not
clear how you then jump to conclusion that this is "God's Sun," and
there is no explanation of how you concluded that the Sun was somehow
"the Savior of Humankind." Do you mean because it helped the crops to
12:12--I'm afraid this section has quite a number of inaccuracies in
it. The narrator states that Horus was of 3000 BC. Horus was a god
worshipped in Egypt for a long time, not just in 3000. Moreover, there
are many version of Horus. I think you mean that an early story of the
battle between Horus and Set comes from around 3000. But that story is
about Horus the Elder, who was not the sun god, but the sky god. The
sun was considered one of his eyes and the moon the other. The Horus
who was represented as the winged sun disk was Horus of Behdet
(sometimes called simply Behdety). There are stories of his battles
with Set too, so I think this is the Horus you mean. You should take
out the date 3000, though, and I would recommend giving his full name
(Horus of Behdet) at least once.
I can find no evidence in any of the Egyptian records that Isis was a
virgin or that Horus was born without contribution from a father. Isis
was married to Osiris. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back
together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis
which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis
for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal
about that. Perhaps people think this because the penis was fake?? But
the fact that she had to use the penis to get pregnant suggests that it
had something to do with the pregnancy. So maybe you should leave the
virgin part out. (I know this will be hard, since you want to have as
many similarities as possible with Jesus, but you have to be fair
I do not think there is any evidence that there was a Star from the
East that guided the three visitors to the baby Horus. Where did you
get this from? If you cannot verify it from actual Egyptian records,
then you should leave it out. Please see the following website for a
discussion of the evidence for this:
There is no indication that Horus was "a prodigal child teacher" when
he was 12. And Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories.
According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were
followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an
unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus
did not have 12 disciples. And he was not crucified.
I would recommend using only the birth date (all sun gods, of course,
are born at that time of year), the miracles, and the titles (though I
don't think "the Lamb of God" was used of him). I know this is not as
good, but you have to be historically accurate.
You may also use the death and resurrection parallel, except you should
make it clear that this was originally about Horus' father Osiris, but
later, when Horus and his father became equated, Horus became known as
the resurrected Osiris. I know of no myth that says he was resurrected
3 days later.
14:00--Regarding Attis, the daughter of the god of the Sangarius river
conceived Attis not by sexual intercourse, but by taking the fruit of
an almond tree that had grown up from the sexual organ of Agdistis,
which the gods had cut off. But, as you can see, a penis was still
involved (as in the case of Isis). Perhaps it would be best to change
the wording on all of these from "born of a virgin" to "born without
sexual intercourse" or something like that.
Attis was not crucified. And there is no myth of which I am aware that
says he was buried for 3 days.
14:10--I don't know much about Krishna, but I would suggest you check
your facts to be sure of this. I heard that he was born to the princess
Devaki and her husband Vasudeva. I don't know of any "Star in the East"
myth associated with him and have never heard of a death and
resurrection story for him either.
14:20--Regarding Dionysus, he is the son of Zeus and Semele in some
myths and the son of Zeus and Persephone in others. I know of no virgin
birth story, though there are some versions that have him born from two
mothers and one father. I also know of no evidence that he was born on
Dec. 25. His festival was in March.
14:40--Regarding Mithra, I think you are confusing him with Mithras,
whose cult resembles Christianity in some ways. Mithra was a Persian
deity that has little resemblance to Jesus. Mithras was a Roman deity
that does. I don't know about any myths that have him buried for 3
days. And more importantly, Mithraism was contemporaneous with
16:30--In this section you conflate two traditions, the biblical story
with later Roman interpretation of that story. Your discussion here is
about the latter (and it is valid), but you make it seem as if it's how
the story was originally written. December 25th and the 3 "Kings" are
not in the Bible (the Magi are not kings).
16:48--Regarding the "M" for the constellation Virgo, you assume that
the symbol for it (the Greek letter Mu) influenced the names of virgin
goddesses, but the constellation has been associated with nearly every
prominent goddess, including Ishtar, Isis, Cybele, Mary, and Athena,
the names of which do not all start with M. You also assume that
Buddhists used the letter "M" for this constellation. Why would they
have used a Greek letter?
17:25--Here you seem to be suggesting that Bethelehem is a made-up
place, a reference to something "not on earth." But it was a town that
actually existed. We have archaeological remains. If you are suggesting
that the name of this place was chosen for the story because it
corresponded with the name of the constellation, then say so.
17:30-19:25--All the stuff about the sun dying for three days and the
spring equinox is good.
19:50--To say that the Bible has "more to do with astrology than
anything else" is too much of an exaggeration. That's one mighty large
book, and it talks about a great many things. Plus, many of the
astrological associations in Christianity are post-biblical.
20:00--All the stuff about the cross is fine.
21:05--Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation, but the
"crown of thorns" analogy is a stretch, because it occurs in a context
not related to Jesus' being in the sky.
22:15--You don't explain why you start counting the ages from 4300 BC.
This date will seem arbitrary if you do not explain why. You also
should explain why you start with Taurus.
26:30--The section on the wall at Luxor is a stretch. You are, of
course, entitled to your interpretation, but most Egyptologists (even
atheists) would not take it seriously, I'm afraid. There is no
depiction of any immaculate conception, and no way of telling what is
being said by any of the characters, if they are saying anything at
27:15--I cannot verify all the items in this list, because I couldn't
read it. I have a feeling you didn't verify them all either. But the
image is effective.
27:33--The epic of Gilgamesh was not written in 2600 BC. Some old
episodes about Gilgamesh began to be recorded then, but the epic as we
have it today is from the 8th century BC. The part of it concerning the
flood probably predates the Bible, but it is impossible to determine
exactly how old it is.
28:15--The Sargon legend comes from several centuries after Sargon, so
you have the date wrong here too. With regard to both the epic of
Gilgamesh, the legend of Sargon, and the Bible, scholars say it is more
likely that there was a common tradition that all three drew from than
that the Bible copied directly from the other two works.
29:00--There is no etymological relationship between the three "M"
names. You are really stretching here. The similarities are
29:14--This part is very weak because it seems to be ignoring the fact
that the laws of many nations are similar, not because they were
copying from each other, but because in order for a community to
function, there are going to be laws that have to be made. I mean, what
society can function without laws against murder and stealing? They ALL
have them! Communities thousands of miles apart and with no
communication between each other are still going to have laws against
stealing, murder, etc. It has nothing to do with copying. It's part of
29:30--Again, you need to delete "virgin birth." And where do you get
"ark of the covenant" and "communion" and "passover" from? I am not
aware of these, and you did not explain them previously.
32:50--Since when does the quantity of sentences within a historian's
work establish whether a person is historical or not. If "Christus" is
mentioned, then the writers obviously believed there was a Christus.
These Roman writers were talking about him in the context of
Christianity, so there is no way to make Christus be anybody else
except the founder of the Christian sect.
33:07--To be fair, the subject of how much of Josephus' reference to
Jesus is original and how much is a forgery is still the subject of
controversy today, even among non-Christians. Most scholars think that
Josephus did refer to Jesus, but that the text was later embellished.
Why not leave open the possibility that there was a man Jesus, but that
the numerous legends about him are fabrications?
34:12--Here you assume that Gnostic Christians came first. But there
were "historical" gospels written before the Gnostic ones. Gnosticism
is not the original form of Christianity. It is just one of its many
35:12--You just got through demonstrating that Christianity was based
on phenomena of the natural world and then here say that Christianity
"serves to detach the species from the natural world." It seems
contradictory. Do you mean later Christianity?
I also think it is important for you to distinguish between "religion"
and "theism." The former has caused a lot more problems than the
latter, which is merely a belief.
33:55--Here we hear someone say, "We want to be factual" and
"acedemically correct." I urge you to live up to this and make the film
even stronger by eliminating the errors and adjusting the wording.
QUOTE (Sunofone @ Nov 12 2007, 04:48 PM)
funny how you guys kinda revere that day as the date of his birth then huh?if there were historical records of jesus existing then we would of learned about him in history class-- there is nothing conclusive if so then prove it right here and right now-- zeitgeist is pure unadulterated truth and jesus did NOT exist
Gaijin: I directly quoted 2 extant manuscripts, even zeitgeist mentions Josephus...I don’t think you truly watched the movie, nor read my post. Celebrating the birth of christ on Dec 25th is not a reason to say Jesus did not exist, and if you base your knowledge of what exists by what other people tell you in history class then proof will do you no good. It is also ridiculous to write off the whole bible as if it were one book. The bible is 66 different books, letters, scrolls and manuscripts --written at different times, by different authors. To say that all of the new testament is one big lie is to completely discredit 27 separate pieces of literature. If you are allowed that freedom, why not me? I personally trust history over conspiracy theories.However to humor you I will give you several NON-BIBLICAL sources in which people claim to have talked with Jesus or his apostles, or seen them firsthand:JosephusEpistle to the Philippians, POLYCARP, Bishop of SmyrnaThe Gospel of PeterThe Diatessaron of TatianThe Apocalypse of PeterThe Visio PauliThe Acts of Xanthippe and PolyxenaThe Apology of AristidesThe Apocalypses of the VirginThe letters of IgnatiusThe Gospel of ThomasThe Epistle of BarnabasYou can say all of these are lies if you wish, maybe they are, I personally wasn’t there. You can also look at many geneological records in regard to Christs earthly descent...Zeitgeists point is to say there is no evidence that Jesus existed, whether or not you think they are lies is secondary to the fact that such evidence DOES exist.