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)
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
This is another that site handles the major deities and does so with tremendous references.
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
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:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html
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.
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
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:
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusVirishna.html

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:
http://www.ldolphin.org/zodiac/
http://server.firefighters.org/catalog/1998/00452.mp3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2018284938536095474
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1809393878728948984

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:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread289468/pg1

you know that was an extensive post and i am still unaware of the message or topic the movie is focusing on and specifically what it is you are contesting-- you will fall flat on your nose if your try to insinuate that christianity is NOT based on pagan rituals,symbolism and dates-- also the new testament is complete rubbish and not worth its weight in fertilizer

bring it on big boy.
read my post. dont just look at it

you know it might do you some good to investigate the theories of jordan maxwell with an open mind-- astrotheology needs NO references other than common sense-- notice the pattern?? its called astro-theology and it does indeed predate all religion

I just watched this movie the other day... errr 1/3 of it. I watched the Federal Reserve part and it was top notch and dead on! I then saw that there was a religious part which made me a bit skeptical and I havent checked it out yet. If nothing else though, do check out the Federal Reserve and NWO section because its extremely solid.

Sunofone,
Thanks for the copy and paste Job, you have proven my point. Which is that you have been told that these similiarites exist so many times you dont even check to see if they its true before you post it. Those who actually looked at what I was saying will see that the points you have shared with us here are laughable to those who have read the texts for themselves. Its really very simple. The smartest atheist dont use this stuff because they know how unsubstantiated they are...they have read the accounts for themselves you should try it. Read through the links I provided or read the texts themselves...take the real red pill.

PS. after reading over my posts I would like to add the caveat that Im not usually an a-hole, and I apologize, its just that I have heard "truthers" say this nonsense is "fact" for too long....LOOK IT UP!

there is nothing to look up unless of course you mean up at the heavans as no athiest or skeptics alike can deny the tale of "sol invictus"-- you have been blinded by a faith in false doctorine and will never accept reality as it destroys your fairy tale of man that came back from the dead which i should point out at this point has no evidence to back it up-- the reality that america was attacked by corrupt entities that have infiltrated our govt holds more water than an imaginary tale of cannabalistic vampire that rose from the dead-- and yes anyone who wants you to drink blood and eat flesh symbolically or not can be classified as such-- i really find christians the most amusing of all brainwashed serfs even more so than islamists or kabalists as they have absolutely nothing keeping them afloat where as islam has "peace" and the kabalists have gematria

Sun --

This is the second thread CC has started that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to anyone but CC.
I hope it's cathartic for him.

--Jaylemurph

I watched the entire movie, and I'll explain how I felt about each part:

For part one, the entire presentation cited no sources whatsoever, and did not use any type of proof to prove any claim. This was the case for the rest of the parts too. They just expected us to believe what they were saying. But it would be fair just to assume that they were lying, because they had no proof for any of their claims.

For part two, I could not really figure out what their argument was. They showed me that bombs were needed to carry out the attacks? Perhaps they were, and I think that they probably were used, but how does this prove that the government wants to take over the world??? I mean, yeah, Bush makes some pretty lowsy speeches there, but...that's just our president.

Part three, again, no evidence. And their logic was a bit difficult to follow. I'm not sure how carrying around ID cards would make us all mind controlled or whatever, even if we had implanted chips, I don't think they would really monitor us wherever we go. I mean, they don't even take into account all the laws they have about privacy and such. The people would neevr let this sort of thing happen. Yeah, people are greedy with banks, but they go a bit too far with their claims.

ok these quotes were enough for me to determine your opinon is based on ignorance-- colin powell recently told us all the real reason for an id number--

What part of my claim dont you understand? They didnt check their facts, they are guilty of terrible and lazy research at best, I am showing you that they are with their own reference list, I have always been ready to accept what the evidence shows, you have no idea what my notions of religion were and are so stop assuming.

lets take your Kirishna, ok? since you supplied us with a list of similarities. I assume its ok for me to copy and paste too. I chose the following site as a reference because it lays it out in a list form much like the list you provided us:





My friend you also have a preconceived notion and a dogma that you wont let go of in the face of facts.

im not sure how your gonna counter my post with a copy and past from a counter completely removed from the facts i presented-- nowhere in my thread is this claim(born on dec25) asserted so im going to have to assume the rest is just as ludicrous-- why not start with jesus? which is a much more familiar figure to the readers and a major part of your original post-- also dogma is defined as a belief or doctorine which is a catagory that the obsevations of the sun cannot be classified as

Ok Ill give you that.... of course you wouldn't have used that argument... what about the other 23 points most of which you just told us were undeniably true? do you still stick by that post? or do you think you may have just assumed the stuff you posted was accurate because you heard Maxwell say it? you remind me of some fundamentalist I know.

Heres part three-its very interesting viewing!
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...h&plindex=2

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.

Oh, Doctor.
Here I was thinking you were a rather noted atheist.

--Jaylemurph

I am simply saying that they did not have enough proof. I'm not saying there's enough proof to prove the truthfulness of Christianity though. I am just saying that either way, there is not enough proof.

yes, I do think the rest seemed on point. but then again, I didnt really tear it a part like I did the religious bit so I could be wrong.

Aw man, the real Doctor don't play no two sides of one field!

--Jaylemurph

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

__________________________________________________________

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
grow?

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
here.)

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:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carri...inscription.htm

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
Christianity.

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
all.

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
superficial.

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
civilization.

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
branches.

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.

All,

I have posted the first of a three part rebuttal to the first part of this movie on my web site (there is also a MP3).

Elgin

now that i have had the HONOR of viewing this absolute jewel in the struggle of speaking truth to power i can with authority say it is by far the best single video available for viewing-- the george carlin snips are classic i am sooo happy they have been immoralized this way and worth watching the entire video for-- this thread was dead before it was submitted as there is nothing that can be challenged as demonstrated by the complete lack of actual rebuttal in the so called rebuttal-- just view the paragraph above which apparently according to the author(not worth mentioning here) rendered "more" than the first half of the part in question mute by presenting a complete 180 degree contradiction-- it clearly states

then makes the bold assertion

when i watched the video imo it is quite clear that the reason given was to commemorate the "sun" which ceases its southward decent on the ecliptic on dec21 and reverses it direction towards a northerly heading signaling the end of winter and the assured return of "spring" when the "bounty" of the "sun" of GOD is the most generous-- to NOT perceive the obvious connection between the sun and its 2d calendar representation marking the solstices,equinoxes in combination with the 3 day death and ressurection scenarion is a most fatal flaw in your reasoning--

you further ignore the obvious personification in the "crown of thorns"

even da vinci knew to group the months into seasons!


in conclusion you MUST watch Zeitgeist as it is the most complete single video to speak absolute truth to power ever-- what are you waiting for?? go watch it now

also i cant wait to see the other two parts of this rediculous rebuttal-- part 2-9/11 - lets get it on!

Sunofone, If you wouldn't mind, would you please read post #20? Thoroughly. I would really be interested in what you have to say about that.

see....it is this type of ignorance that i will not put up with-- just the fact alone that this is here is demonstration enough of the absolute inane reasoning contained there in and is enough to disuade even the most open mind from proceding further-- im sure Who sr is an educated scholar when it comes to his illsionary field of theism but in the real world consciencely active souls are not this absent minded-- perhaps he needs to study astronomy in order to perceive the explanations presented in Zeitgeist? i find it extremely ODD that someone of the intellect that is claimed by who kid of his father would be UNAWARE of the planet venus and its ancient role of being the trumpet signaling the arrival of Gods SUN-- even after the movie clearly explains the personification between venus and the belt of orion as the eastern star and three kings it is somehow oblivious to your father?!?

Sunofone, throughout this entire discussion i have yet to see any evidence to oppose the evidence that i have presented from my father! Ignorance, you call it? I shall gladly admit that it was ignorance when i see some valid proof of what you are saying. If you have read the quote you just responded to, then surely you realize you will need some accurate Egyptian records to prove that there was a star from the East that guided the travelers to Horus. If you were referring to baby Jesus instead of baby Horus than your claims here would be more valid but we all have yet to take your claims seriously (because of lack of specific evidence), therefore I suggest you study up on this subject a bit more, maybe get some quotes from actual historical records? Then I will be glad to accept the claims that you have to say

the only records that are needed are the eternal symbols outlined in the heavans upon which all tales spring forth ...as above so below-- im not sure we're on the same page here...you are aware that there were no actual babies?...right? horus and jesus were personifications of the sun and religion is nothing more than the catalyst used to shift the "adoration of the sun" to a man

You never cease to amaze me, Sunofone. Just the mere fact that the movie states these things seem to convince you wholly. How can you even state that there were no babies at all of Jesus and Horus? You seem to get your information ONLY from Zeitgeist. Is that all the information you need?

EDIT: A question: so you are basically saying the mere presence of the stars is enough to prove the Zeitgeist's claims? Maybe I misunderstood you

exactly...it is enough to convince me that the astrological symbols known as the zodiac and the movement of the sun through these "houses",ages,signs or whatever you want to call them was the basis for all known religion whose only goal is to shift the adoration of the sun to man-- i am only getting my information from the oldest book known to man... the zodiac-- you on the other hand seem pretty convinced that a man actually walked on water,rose people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself without having to substantiate any of it because of a book compiled a few hundred years ago and tacked on to the "epic of creation"-- also zeitgeist got their information from "astrotheology" which again originates from the sun and the zodiac and predates the bible by a few hundred years perhaps thousands so dont pretend they made it up

Hardly, that was the reason, given in the film, but that was not the reason the church choose December 25th. It was not to commemorate the Sun, but to replace the celebration that occurred at that time. (Which historically is just what happened). There is also the serious problem that whereas the movie portrays the death and resurrection as deriving from the solstices, as I pointed out, the Church did not set the birthday as the 25th of December until hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus the movie has the problem that all the things is claims were derived from December 25, were already well established hundreds of years before any connection to Decembe 25th was even made. And when a connection was made it was to eliminate, not commemorate the previous reasons people celebrated on that date. That one now can find some parallel is exactly the problem with such parallels.



Actually, my three part rebuttal deals only with part I. While I consider the other two part just as flawed (but then as a teacher of critical thinking, i consider all such grand conspiracy theories flawed, or at least all I have looked into) I will leave it for others to deal with.

Elgin

You may believe what you want, but my point is that much of the information presented in this movie is either a misconception or completely untrue. If you had done some more research you would have known this. I do agree that the Zodiac is very old , much older than the bible or any contemporary belief systems. Yes it is true that the signs in the stars and the story of jesus have much in common, but this does not prove anything. Similarities do not prove anything. We simply do not know all the answers. Parts of the bible may have been exaggerated but this does not make it completely untrue. I have found that believing in your heart is more wise than believing in your religious organization. And my main point was discussing the historical accuracy of the things other than the zodiac and "astrotheology." (Since I am not an expert in that subject and neither is my father). But I would look to the parts where it compared Jesus to other religious figures...many of those claims were untrue.

the funny thing is you and your father are more knowledgable in astrotheology than you think you just dont know it-- imo believing the perspective of "astrotheology"(the sun being the source for all religion) is much more rational than believing that a "man" walked on water,rose people from the dead and then rose from the dead himself-- which has more evidence to back it up?? you have already admitted they have "much" in common which can be classified as evidence "for" astrotheology ...now what evidence do you have that supports the tales told in the new testament? and for the record you cannot use the new testament as evidence of itself

Sunofone, You are STILL not understanding my point here. I am not trying to prove the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system. I am trying to prove that the evidence presented in Zeitgeist is largely INVALID. Now do you understand what I am trying to show you here? I CANNOT prove the stories of the Bible. But I CAN prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in Zeitgeist. If you need more assistance with that, then remember post #20!

you cannot prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in zeitgeist without first proving the tales told in the new testament or in any belief system-- how can your father claim to disprove anything by claiming "ignorance" like he did in post #20? --there absolutely no evidence of anything in post #20-- the only thing you have demonstrated in post #20 is exactly how unfamiliar you are with the relationship between the sun and ancient gods-- i dont understand how you plan on proving the invalidity of zeitgeist which is making the claim that the new testament is an allegorical tale of the sun without first proving the tale in the bible????

The author in Zeitgeist makes historical references that are off or completely untrue. You can verify it with a historian if you wish. I already have. There is no need to prove the stories of the bible first. In fact I have utterly no idea why I would need to. If the historical references in Zeitgeist are untrue, they are untrue!! It has nothing to do with the Bible! For instance, Horus is not mentioned in the bible. So why would I need to prove the bible stories right first to prove that what they say in Zeitgeist about Horus is wrong? You don't seem to understand. Yes, you may believe that astrotheology is the basis of today's religion, but whether you like it or not, Zeitgeist is historically inaccurate! So will you believe something that doesn't even use valid evidence???

so now you are claiming authority on the only interpretation of the epyptian tales of their gods-- are you asserting that the story of ra or osirus has nothing to do with the sun?

This is an irrational statement. While I do not believe it, what if for sake of argument both Zeitgiest and the NT were wrong? By your logic, one could just as easily, and in fact given the actual evidence, more easily, claim that one could not prove the invalidity of the historical claims made in the NT without first proving the claims in Zeitgeist, which given the errors (and as I will show in part II of my review the dishonesty) in the movie, this would be impossible. Thus you have set up a false choice. While I believe the claims in the NT are historically accurate, I would never make such an argument, because is it irrational on its face.

However, there is a deeper problem here and it deals with the whole concept of proof. Proof is simply the level of evidence required to conclude something is true. However the level of evidence required varies from situation to situation (e.g. civil vs criminal trials) and within a given situation from person to person. In addition, how we evaluate evidence varies depending on our world view. Thus proof is in reality a very subjective concept. In such discussions, I find that demands for proof are often used more as a defense mechanism than anything else. (i.e. 'you can't reach my subjective requirement for "proof" so I can ignore all your evidence'). This is why I personally avoid discussions of proof, and instead focus on what the evidence supports and points to.

As I have shown the movies claims based on parallels centering around Dec 25 simply do not stand up to critical evaluation, but fall apart once it is realize that the thing that were supposed to derive from this date were already well established long before there was any connection to this date, and when the connection was made is was made for different reasons.

Elgin

as you have shown where?? here in this post #22 i clearly demonstrated your complete contradiction-- you just stated above that it was made for different reasons-- i went to your bogus site and pulled the direct quote where you give your "reason" which as demonstrated in post #22 you claimed it was for the "winter solstice celebrations" which is a bold faced contradiction-- the winter solstice celebrations are exactlty that "SOLSTICE" celebrations and clearly stand up to the most critical of evaluations-- i will not let you slander the absolutely best single video to speak truth to power ever to grace computer monitors and tvs the world over-- so in conclusion anyone interested in seeing what all the hype is about the only remedy is to view it yourself!!
ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Full Film
an absolute MUST SEE!!

Very nice post, Elgin.

--Jaylemurph

Ok, maybe some claims in the movie Zietgiest are false, but almost 100% of the claims in the bible are false. Is it that much harder to believe that a major religion is based on nothing more than the stars, than what you are actually told to believe. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is much better than no evidence at all. Dr_who said it best, "There are similarities."

Very interesting movie. I think its just to big for most people to digest. Its something they wont be able to ignor forever though. The war on terrorism is designed to destroy the US. Thats the cold hard truth. When the economy collapses and our country is plunged into chaos, perhaps some of these happy citizens will remember what they saw here.

The three kings that visited Jesus were the stars on Orion's belt... the death and resurrection of Jesus are personified interpretations of the winter solstice...

Interesting. I had not heard this view before. One thing that I would like to point out is the needed connection to December 25th and the complete LACK of this connection to Jesus' life. Though the issue of Jesus' actual birthdate is under debate, most agree that he was not born on Christmas.

December 25th does have very strong ties to early religion (as shown in the movie) and it was this very reason that the celebration of Jesus' birthday was placed on this date. This was one of the many steps taken to merge Christianity with paganism (another being the moving of the Sabbath to Sunday).

Doctor_Who said it best when he said that there were similarities. No matter what Jesus would have done someone would have been able to show similarities to someone else. I fail to see how showing these similarities proves anything.

One thing I found amusing that I would like to point out is their complete dismissal of the Bible and yet part 3 of Zeitgeist aligns so much with modern day end-times Biblical prophecy interpretations that it's chilling.

No, you claimed a contradiction, which is not quite the same thing. As I pointed out in my reply to your post you were confusing commemorating with replacing, and that in any event, the replacement did not occur until hundreds of years later. Thus there was no contradiction at all in my statement, merely a complete refutation of the claims of the movie, for the movies claims that these beliefs derived from the December 25th date, and thus the movies claims are completely unsupported and unsupportable. Since you ignored my post, the arguments I presented showing the error in your claim have yet to have been refuted, and thus there is no reason to take your repeat of the claim as anything other than the repeating of a claim that has already been shown to be false.

However let me see if I can make it even clearer for you. This part of the movie claims that the historical basis for the death and resurrection (among other beliefs) were false for these beliefs actually were taken from early beliefs centered around the winter solstice and the date of Dec 25th. The claim is simply that because there is a parallel between Dec 25th and the solstice, and the beliefs about Christ, therefore the beliefs about Christ are false and instead derived from Dec 25th and the solstice. Now this is fallacious reasoning to begin with, and has long been recognized as such. But even if it were not, the movie still has the fatal problem that the beliefs about Christ preceded any connection to Dec 25th and the solstice by hundreds of years and even when a connection was made, it was made to replace and do away with the celebrations centered around the winter solstice, not to commemorate them as the movie implies. As such there is simply no way to rationally hold that the claims made in the movie are correct as it requires an effect hundreds of years before there was a cause. It would be like saying that something that was not to happen for another 100 years caused our beliefs about George Washington, and that he never really existed.

I would also point out that not only did you ignore the arguments in my earlier reply, likewise you did not attempt to refute any of the problems I pointed in my last note. Rather you, like the movie, simply rehash old claims that have already been refuted as if they are still valid.

BTW, I recorded the second part of my rebuttal last night and it will be posted tomorrow on my site. I will be interested to see how you get around the problems, and in one case lie, that the movie puts forth to try and make its claim.

Elgin

saying that the "belief in christ" proceded the "connection" to the solstice is one thing and proving it is quite another-- especially when there was never a seperation from the solstice to begin with--your insinuation makes no sense what so ever-- if you really wanted to "replace" celebrations centered around the solstice wouldnt it be good idea to actually "change the date" and distance your self from it?? you argument is juevenile and unfounded and "pronouncing" that scholars are in agreement concerning something and that it has been long regaurded as such without demonstrating examples is biased propaganda and in your response you repeated everything twice just in a different way to expand the body of nonsense which is somewhat annoying

It would all depend on your world view. There is considerable evidence for claims made in the Bible. Personally I think the weight of the evidence supports the claims made in the Bible. However, to follow this evidence to the conclusions it points to does require one to at least allow for the possibility of a supernatural. It does not require the a priori acceptance, but it does require the acceptance of the possibility. Most atheists, agnostics, skeptics, or whatever label they choose to go by, I have discussed with over the past couple of decades, have a world view that precludes the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. Even when they claim to be simply agnostic on the matter, it is clear that they do not view the issue in a neutral manner, but are strongly biased against such a belief and refuse to follow the evidence to conclusion that would require it. So if one goes simply where the evidence points, it is far easier to believe the Bible than the clearly false claims made in the movie.

As for the similarities, as scholars realized long ago, if you look hard enough you can find parallels between most things. As I pointed out in my review, just look at all the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln. But while there are parallels, they are hardly meaningful. Thought if one wanted to use the “logic” of the movie, I guess one would argue that given the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln, Lincoln never existed, but the beliefs about him were derived from Kennedy, for the movie claims that Jesus never existed but the beliefs about him derived from a parallel with the winter solstice that was not made until hundreds of years later.

Elgin

Except that the book of Luke, which pretty clearly does talk of Jesus, and is one of the earliest references, also pretty clearly eliminates Dec 25 as the birth date and points to a time in the spring. Now unless you can present evidence of an earlier association with Dec 25 as the birth date, (which you can't unless you know of some newly discovered documents) the evidence clearly points to a belief about Jesus before any connection to Dec 25 was made.



How could you change the date of the solstice? One the othe hand, if one established a competing celebration on a different day, you would simply end up with two celebrations, not the elimination of the one. The only way to eliminate the celebration of the winter solstice was to give people something else to celebrate on that day instead of the solstice. You may consider this a juvenile and unfounded arguement, but it does have the benefit that historically it is exactly what happened, for the celebration of the winter solstice was replaced by the celebration of Christmas.

Elgin

Hello everyone! Am I glad I found this site.

First, although Zeitgeist contains MANY inaccuracies (I was hoping that it wouldn't) it does correctly state identify the origins of all religious practices as celestial. Arguing about the dates, wording, historical events, parallels, etc....is useless.

If a guy named Jesus was on the news today claiming; to be the son of god, able to walk on water, heal the sick, turn water into wine....would you believe him? Probably not. So why believe it happened "way back when"?


What would happen to Jesus (might be he's mexican and his name's pronounced hey-zeus)? He would be arrested, thrown in jail, transferred to a mental ward, given the "medicine of the month", and made to believe he's just a delusional mess. When he was "cured", he would be forced to work and pay 40% of his income to support our government(or pay interest to a private bank) and told he was lucky to live in a "FREE" society.

Well, there are some of us who think if he claimed to do/be those things, he would be legitimately a delusional mess and need some meds, and that he should be glad there's a system in place to treat him before he gets angry we don't believe him and starts hurting people.

--Jaylemurph

Right. Unfortunately there was no system in place at the time. So people had to deal with the crusades, being burned at the stake, getting thrown into a lake and drowning after being accused of withcraft, etc.................

Ahh, organized religion: has there ever been a greater bringer of peace, love and understanding?

--Jaylemurph

All,

The second part of my three part review has been posted, again there is an MP3 available.

Elgin