this is a classic and very informative


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=92...h&plindex=1

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

(note: This post was recently posted on another thread, but no one responded, so I am putting it here because i really believe this is useful information for the Zeitgeist video)
__________________________________________________________

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.

Ive not seen the movie but everything ive heard about it is total crap. Doctor_who's post (from his father) pretty much states it.
Most of the stuff people try to pass off as similarities between ancient gods and christianity are false.

No, its just your religious beliefs tend to close your minds. If you already have your mind made up then it really isn't a debate is it? Dr_Who i respect your post though.

Its really not a matter of religious beliefs but a matter of historical accuracy. Faith alone cant prove anything, but when there are ancient manuscripts, texts, books, even the bible, which has been around for centuries...I think all that is capable of disproving a few claims made by Zeitgeist, claims which are not backed up by any evidence at all, at least this evidence is not shown in the movie.

And after doing some research, I found that the creator of Zeitgeist did use one (yes, only one) source, which was a book written by (forgotten the name at the moment, I'll be sure to put it in this thread later) who turned out to be a historical quack, and almost 100% of the historical community disagreed with this person's claims (according to my father). So really, Zeitgeist does not have any valid proof to back up its claims so it seems

not true, you've been raised as a cult fanatic, so you will ignore and argue facts just like most religious people. and actually this information is nothing new

Ah...well see actually this has nothing to do with religious beliefs, cult fanaticism, or what we've been raised to believe. If you had studied ancient history a bit more, (or simply read post #2), its all a matter of historical fact, not religious faith. You may think that we argue against Zeitgeist simply because we have a religion, but this is not the case.

I'm hoping a historian will come on this thread eventually...

are you implying religion is NOT a belief? zeitgeist is an awesome film that exposes the truth about religion-- that is nothing more than a distorted variation of astrotheology where ritual,fear and faith(which is the dedication to a non provable belief and is defined as the surrender of reason) are used to control the masses by divide and conquer

I have to agree with Doctor Who about the first part of the film. Im no professor, but I am a religious studies student and I even noticed a whole slew of innaccuracies in Part 1 of the film. That being said, the second two parts are great. Part II deals with 9/11 and Part III deals with the NWO, Federal Reserve, World Banks etc. These two parts are amazing and should be watched by anyone and everyone. They do a great job of summing up whats really going on in the world. Its just too bad that Part 1 has to ruin the whole film.

Remember never to assume someone is lying just because someone tells you they are lying. While I enjoyed parts 2 and 3 of Zeitgeist, part 1 needs A LOT of work. The creator of Zeitgeist uses the oh-so-common fear of conspiracy and coverup that is becoming so popular today. Perhaps we are leaned towards believing what the movie says because we WANT to believe it. We NEED mystery in our lives. But I urge you never to assume anything...I encourage everyone to do some more research.

I love how the defenders of part I of this film, when faced with actual facts, use the "you've been brain-washed" manuever. It's very convenient, especially when history is not on their side. Now, provide me with some real sources and sufficient data, not some cleverly edited pseudo-documentary, and we will talk.

Hey Doctor Who, I sent you a private message on this site, but it occurred to me that no one really pays attention to those things, so I am just gonna re-post it here to be sure that you see it...


"Hey, I was very impressed with your father's summary of the inaccuracies within Part I of the film "Zeitgeist", which you posted in a thread in the conspiracy forums. I am a member of a Facebook group regarding the film and was wondering if you would grant me permission to copy and paste that information so that I could present it to the group. I would of course credit you and your father and make it clear that the info was not my own, but his. I would be very appreciative, as I am the only member of that particular Facebook group who is a little skeptical about the film. "



Thanks again.

if only you were held to the same standards you would realise that you really have none--but your operating on faith so im sure youll ignore this

like what?

Like those provided by Doctor Who's father, as well as anyone who has actually studied religion.

I am not naive enough to suggest that religion has not been manipulated to control others. However, the film draws paralleles where there are none. In fact, if one studies religion at an even elementary level, it becomes clear that all major faiths have many similarities. This fact, I believe, supports religion more than it hurts it.

Also, you seem to be even more dogmatic than those you are criticizing. At least they can back up their claims with historic facts. You, on the other hand, employ rhetoric and insult. So, objectively, who should I really take more seriously?

This first paragraph is false, completely false.
First off, here is a group who believes God owns the sun, Christians.

Also, you can't say that the sun isn't "the savior of humanity," it didn't save us in as much as we wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for the sun. It's the basis for life on earth. No sun, no nothing, no God either, cuase we wouldn't have been around to invent him.

I would like to see evidence of the claims in Dr. Who's post. I can punch more holes through what he said then what is said in part 1 of the film.

Really what should be taken seroius are the paralleles in the film's part one. Oh, and historic fact can be synomis with lies. To quote a great line from a quizi-great film "history is written by those you've hung heroes" Robert the Bruce, Braveheart

Lets keep this thread going, I got more to say.

ZEITGEIST is surely one of the bravest individual documentaries to ever grace the screen-- not only does it completely expose the unconstitutional income tax and the illegality of the federal reserve but it completely eviscerates the illusion of the jesus conspiracy and the mega strangle hold that all organized religion has on the worlds integrity and reason-- it also happens to do a dang fine job exposing the lies of 9/11 and the wtc demolition-- every time i watch this it just gets better and better-- its worth watching just for the bill hicks and george carlin insight but goes so much further it is simply amazing-- if you have not seen this WATCH IT NOW!! ......RIGHT NOW GO WATCH IT!!..........HURRY!! also tell everyone you know about it!!

not sure if i should start a new thread or not but this seems like a good place for this video-- its long but worth it--
From the mystery religions of ancient Egypt to the Zionist role in 9/11, "Ring Of Power" unrevises 4000 years of revisionist human history with never - before - seen revelations. "Ring Of Power" puzzles together the pieces of a giant puzzle into one BIG PICTURE documentary series.



see it here by the chapter link

has anyone seen "ring of power" yet??? none of the three parts of ZEITGEIST can be refuted -- ITS ALL COMPLETELY FACTUAL AND PROVABLE UNLIKE RELIGION

Hi everybody, here's my "two" cents...

After watching the movie, I can't think of a simpler, or more elegant explanation for the origin of all mythology, Christianity included, than as an allegory for the worship of anthropomorphized Sun and constellations (regardless of true or false parallelisms between religions). To me, all scripture is pure allegorical writing, as I have no way to confirm any of it as historical account, outside the scripture itself, nor would I expect to.

Somewhere along the line, someone figured out that people could be controlled through their insecurities, generated by their own perceived sense of mortality, and started exploiting mythology to acquire power. And this was thousands of years before Christianity. By then there was just too much mythology around, and it was just too easy to pick bits here and there and create a new one, to establish a new order. If you think about it, people are converted just by reading the mythology and hearing what someone else has to say about it. No one ever has to witness anything. And there's no reason to assume anyone ever did.

So my opinion on part 1 is that it makes perfect sense regardless of how accurate it is. It could be 0% accurate on the parallelisms and it would still make more sense than anything else.

Now, for the 9/11 conspiracy theory... not a theory in my opinion. And for the life of me, I can't understand how anyone sees anything other than controlled demolitions. Adding extensive visual evidence with circumstantial ones (insurance issues, WTC 7 documentation and archive issues, war excuse issues, etc, etc...), and lack of willingness by the government to address the issues, the case is settled as far as I'm concerned. The USA is as bad as North Korea in what regards mass manipulation of public opinion. They're both the greatest countries in the world, as far as the public knows. But if one doesn't allow any access to information, the other has to many distractions.

As for the Fed issue (not that we can differentiate it from 9/11)... its simplicity is overwhelming. Central banks are inherently independent from political influence. So as to not let political interests dictate monetary policy, they say... Oh FFS! Central bank governors are absolutely autonomous when it comes to monetary policy making, and completely free to manipulate the economy system to its own benefit. They're granted complete sovereignty over monetary policy!!! They even use the bloody word in the ECB's website. How is allowing a government to surrender all real power over a nation, to a handful of men who aren't accountable to anyone (they're simply supposed to "respect" the public interest) an intelligent thing to do? How is that democratic? It doesn't matter if the facts in the movie are 100% correct, we can see what goes on with our own eyes.

I seen it couple times a while back, my p/s take on ZEITGEIST; kick ass doco.





I can't wait for the sequel...ZEITGEIST 2

LOL:LOL and i agree with ya totally

I agree with bcar on this regardless of the accuracy of part 1 the rest is so compelling it has to be watched and further investigation done into some of the claims it makes. With regard to the Federal reserve which sold everyone down the river, and gave power to the money men, it is argued this was to done to control and perhaps destroy the middle classes as was the signing of the free trade agreements. Free trade agreements basically allowed cheap imports into the US when there was no need, such a huge country with so many states, there was simply no need. Apparently the US had 5 Billion in the Federal reserve in 1913, and much like the UK we now pay tax, simply to pay the interest to private banks that have lent money to our governments...crazy. Free trade has now destroyed skilled labour and in turn ruined alot of people's livelyhoods in order to weaken the middles casses. This was done apparently because history has shown it was relatively easy to put down a peasant revolt compared with an educated middle class.

just watched this movie I am in total shock about so many things. This is a great movie everyone should watch. The federal income tax part of it I am pissed about. I want to figure out how not to pay federal income tax!!!!!

"UNADULTERATED TRUTH" by the people that brought you ZEITGEIST

Ladies and gentlemen please
Would you bring your attention to me?
For a feast for your eyes to see
An explosion of conspiracy

Like nothing you’ve ever seen before
Watch closely as I open this door
Your jaws will be on the floor
After this you’ll be begging for more

Welcome to the show
Please come inside
Ladies and gentlemen

woa
Do you want it?
woa
Do you need it?
woa
Let me hear it

Ladies and gentlemen good evening
You’ve seen that seeing is believing
Your ears and your eyes will be bleeding
Please check to see if you’re still breathing

Hold tight cause the show is not over
If you will please move in closer
You're about to be bowled over
By the wonders you’re about to behold here

Welcome to the show (welcome to the show)
Please come inside

ZEITGEIST[II] addendum

"Ring of Fire" good flick. Like ya said, puts the past 4000 years into perspective. I couldn't stop watching it. Makes my skin crawl thinking that these people have "ruled the world" for that long.

with the part 1, the maker of Zeitgeist video want to make a link with part 2 and 3. Whatever witch stastement in part 1 is true or false, im sure they made a lot of research.
they want you to realize that religion have always controled society. form the begin of history, to now.
is in that point we have to react. is religion is real ? i simply don't know because I don't belive, i think it the best way to make populaion do what '' THEY '' want you to do.

WAR. must ancient war have a religion, territory or money reason

an blind vision to autority.

there is maybe a god, but as human as animal are only a batch of living cellule

But the filmmaker fails to reconcile te message of Part I with the other two parts of the film. So, if Christianity were not practiced, we would all clearly see that 9/11 was a conspiracy (and for the record, I'm far from convinced that it was). Religion has prevented us from rejecting the income tax and the concept of the Federal Reserve? I don't buy it.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=11&t=99757

the new version.
Watch only the first 5 minutes, then turn it off and think. Just think about everything you've been told to think and believe. Is this humanity?

I say this last Christmas and I proved it all wrong from my beliefs and I think Part 1 is BS.

they delted it from youtube twice with no reason given
now you see the work of a censoring goverment

Come on! This movie is entertaining - like any good exploitation film. I sort of like watching the Discovery Channel shows about how an asteroid will obliterate us all. I guess it tickles my brain in a funny way. This film however is fiction. Some things are true - much is not. The whole Horus - Jesus thing is fabrication, with just enough innuendos to be fun. Now you can find numerous websites repeating this new mythology - but that does not make it any truer than the story of Isis getting pregnant from her dead and peckerless hubby.

Don't get serious about this stuff. The Zeitgeist move says that Jesus Christ was a completely fictional character. Not true. They have found a tomb with a box that Jesus' bones may have been in Israel - That makes the Christians cringe. But the guy was real. Anyway Jesus is not a problem - he was an anti-authoritarian - he teaching people to think and not just follow stupid rules, but to play nice,be honest - intellectually honest. Maybe the Zeitgeist guys should take a lesson there.

What really bothers me about the movie is not the conspiracy to go to war or international banking as a goal to rule the world - (although I don't think the ruling elite are that far sighted or well organized - I think they are just self serving pigs and want short term wealth not some thousand year plan). I fault them because they undermine there theses filling the movie with obvious half truths and fabrications. If I wanted to destroy the credibility of the theory I would weave in easily validated emotionally charged lies to discredit the theory as lunatic fringe rantings. They have done this.

The makers of this movie make an emotionally charged appeal to convince you. And its easy to fall for. Just as 911 made an emotionally charged appeal to go to war. THIS SHOULD BE THE LESSON!!!! Whenever you make a political move based on emotion - rather than one based on verifiable information and reason - you begin to act like George Bush - and his idiotic gut level decisions - which he is so proud of.
Making visceral (gut level) decisions is appropriat for children, who do not have enough experience to know what to fear - this is wired into the brain. Adults are supposed to use information and logic.

When you know part of someones logic or argument is based on false information, how much credence should you give to the rest of their argument?

The film was fun and entertaining - but I will still be paying my taxes. Even though I am not a fan of the Federal Reserve system - I understand that paying taxes is the price of a prosperous and fair society. I have lived in third world nations where there were no taxes except on alcohol and cigarettes - the health care, roads, education - well it was the third world.

I agree war and demagoguery are sham to create power elites and control the masses. I wish these film makers would use the truth to make this point rather than creating new mythologies and undermining the facts.

The usual reason for deleting something on YouTube is that the author has complained about breach of copyright. For instance, Bart Sibrel's Apollo hoax videos are regularly removed for this reason, Sibrel wants to sell them, not give them away.

Have you any evidence to think that there is another reason in this case?

Quite. This sort of thing just tarnishes reasoned opposition by associating it with such claims.

Not sure if it was at the time of your posting, but the movie is free to view directly from the author's site www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Correct.


Incorrect. They found a box with James' bones, Jesus' brother, which last year, was proven to be a hoax.


I agree. They undermined their own film as well as the NWO theory. Their second film was much better, but was still undermined by their communistic ramblings.

Your beliefs can't disprove something, facts can. What was part 1? 9/11 hoax, Jesus hoax or NWO theory? I thought the 9/11 and Jesus hoax parts were rather dumb and untruthful as well as undermining to the NWO theory.