Zeitgeist debunked

[conspiracy clothes]

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

[Sunofone]

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

[conspiracy clothes]

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

[Sunofone]

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

Similarities Between Jesus and Horus

1. Both were conceived of a virgin.

2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)

3. Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.

4. Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.

5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.

6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

7. Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.

8. Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).

9. Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

10. Both births were announced by angels (this si nto the same as number 7).

11. Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.

12. Horus was visited at birth by "three solar deities" and Jesus was visited by "three wise men".

13. After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.

14. To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child." To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to "arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt."

15. When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.

16. Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual.

17. Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.

18. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.

19. Both were baptized at age 30.

20. Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

21. Both Anup and John were later beheaded.

22. Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.

23. Both Horus and Jesus successfully resist this temptation.

24. Both have 12 disciples.

25. Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind.

26. Horus "stilled the sea by his power." Jesus commanded the sea to be still by saying, "Peace, be still."

27. Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (Note the similarity in names when you say them out loud. Further, Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.)

28. Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, "house of Anu").

29. Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount.

30. Both were crucified.

31. Both were crucified next to two thieves.

32. Both were buried in a tomb.

33. Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back "three days" later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is hardly three days).

34. Both had their resurrection announced by women.

35. Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.

36. Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means "anointed one").

37. Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the winnower.

38. Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish).

39. Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd's crook.

40. Horus was born in Anu ("the place of bread") and Jesus was born in Bethlehem ("the house of bread").

41. "The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" (See Point 13)

42. Both were transfigured on the mount.

43. The catacombs of Rome have pictures of the infant Horus being held by his mother, not unlike the modern-day images of "Madonna and Child."

44. Noted English author C. W. King says that both Isis and Mary are called "Immaculate".

45. Horus says: "Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power." And Jesus says: "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once."

46. Horus was identified with the Tau (cross).

Similarities between Jesus and Krishna

Hindus believe that Krishna was the eighth "avatar" or incarnation of the god Vishnu - one of the Hindu deities in the Hindu trinity. Hindu scriptures state that Krishna "appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory." Krishna was born sometime between 900 and 1200 B.C. and his religious teachings can be found in the Bhagavad-Gita, one of the sacred texts in Hinduism. The karmic similarities between Jesus and the Hindu messiah named Krishna (1200 B.C.) are many. There over one hundred similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors which could easily fill a volume. Some of these similarities are apocryphal which means their source comes from the extra-canonical scriptures of Hinduism.

Identical Life Experiences

(1)

Krishna was miraculously conceived and born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") as a divine incarnation.

(2) He was born at a time when his family had to travel to pay the yearly tax.

(3) His father was a carpenter yet Krishna was born of royal descent.

(4)

His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gifts.

(5)

He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants who feared that the divine child would supplant his kingdom.

(6)

His father was warned by a heavenly voice to flee the tyrant who sought the death of the child. The child was then saved by friends who fled with them in the night to a distant country. When the tyrant learned that his attempt to kill the child failed, he issued a decree that all the infants in the area be put to death. Writing about Krishna in the eighteenth century, Sir William Jones stated, "In the Sanskrit dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole history of the incarnate deity, born of a virgin, and miraculously escaping in infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country." (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I, p. 273).

(7)

The Bible states that Jesus and family fled to Egypt afterward to escape from King Herod. According to the Christian apocryphal text "the Gospel of the Infancy," the family traveled to Maturea, Egypt. Krishna was born in Maturea, India, hundreds of years earlier.

(8) He was baptized in the River Ganges.

(9) The missions of Krishna and Jesus were the same - the salvation of humanity.

(10)

Krishna worked miracles and wonders such as raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.

(11) Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.

(12)

Jesus taught his disciples about the possibility of removing a mountain by faith. According to tradition, Krishna raised Mount Goverdhen above his disciples to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra.

(13) "He lived poor and he loved the poor."

(14) Krishna washed the feet of the Brahmins and transfigured before his disciples.

(15)

Krishna's teachings and Jesus' teachings were very similar. The celebrated French missionary and traveler, Evarist-Regis Hucv, who made a journey of several thousand miles through China and Tibet, stated, "If we addressed a Mogul or Tibetan this question, 'Who is Krishna?' the reply was instantly 'The savior of men." According to Robert Cheyne, "All that converting the Hindoos to Christianity does for them is to change the object of their worship from Krishna to Christ." Appleton's Cyclopedia says this about the teachings of Krishna: "Its correspondence with the New Testament is indeed striking."

(16)

There is an extra-canonical Hindu tradition which states that Krishna was crucified. According to some traditions, Krishna died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.

(17)

He descended to hell, rose bodily from the dead, and ascended to heaven which was witnessed by many.

(18)

Krishna is called the "shepherd god" and "lord of lords," and was considered "the redeemer, firstborn, sin bearer, liberator, universal Word."

(19)

He is the second person of the trinity, and proclaimed himself the "resurrection" and the "way to the Father."

(20)

He was considered the "beginning, the middle and the end," ("alpha and omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

(21) His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."

(22)

Krishna is to return again riding a white horse to do battle with the "prince of evil," who will desolate the earth.

[Walty]

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.

[conspiracy clothes]

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!

Edited July 4, 2007 by conspiracy clothes

[Sunofone]

....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

[jaylemurph]

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

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

[The-Doctor]

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.

[Sunofone]

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'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.

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--

Colin Powell Leaks Reason For Social Security Number

Walter J. Burien, Jr.

6-30-7

I was watching Fox News Sunday this morning, 06/17/01, being hosted in the first segment by Tony Snow. The lead off guest was Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. Mr. Powell gave an excellent recitation relevant to foreign affair matters.

Mr. Powell during the entire interview was very confident, and spoke without hesitation throughout the entire interview excluding for a one second period, after one specific statement made by him as he was talking about the Russian peoples. When he realized the consequences of making this disclosure indirectly to the American public, he froze for a second, his eyes rolled back as he realized what he had said, and then he continued without further pause for the rest of the interview.

In my lifetime, I have never sent out to others a post relevant to a quote I heard while watching a news program. In this case, the significance of what was said in the flow of truth coming from Mr. Powell, is a statement that establishes the primary reality of intent per the politics and operative structure coming from government in this country. I had to immediately share what I had heard with others.

Mr. Powell was discussing Mr. Bush's trip to Europe, and was at a point in his recitation covering certain concerns regarding Russia, and Russia being requested to cooperate with the United States to track down lost Nuclear materials and scientists who were unaccounted for after the break up of Russia, that now may be in the hands of, or in the case of the missing scientists, working for adversaries of the USA.

The quote from Mr. Powell, per the Russian Scientists that every American "NEEDS" to hear immediately is as follows:

[Colin Powell] - "Finding the Russian scientists may be a problem being that Russia does not have a Social Security System, as here in America, that allows us to MONITOR, TRACK DOWN and CAPTURE an American citizen."

The significance of Mr. Powell's statement is profound, and...

link

[conspiracy clothes]

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

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:

It should be noted that a few of these claims originate with Louis Jacolliot (1837-1890), a Frenchman who lived in India. His claims have not been supported with any external evidence. If he is to be believed, we are taking only his word for it. No actual Buddhists in India appear to have ever professed the beliefs Jacolliot claimed. And even if, hypothetically, there were 19th century Buddhists who believe the things he claimed, it's likely their beliefs were influenced by Christianity, since there is no record of these beliefs pre-dating Christianity.

I've heard from a couple of followers of the Hindu religion (one named Manali, the other who will remain unnamed) who have provided much-appreciated feedback.

1. Born of a Virgin on December 25

Since, according to legend, Krishna had seven older siblings, it's unlikely his mother, Devaki, was a virgin (and there's no tradition saying she was). According to krishna.avatara.org, Krishna was born on the "8th day of the dark half of the month of Sravana. This corresponds to July 19th 3228 BC." Skeptic Acharya S makes the claim that Krishna was born of a virgin in the book "The Christ Conspiracy", but her footnotes for this merely say that "The orthodox legend of Krishna is that he was born of a married woman, Devaki; but like Maya, Buddha's mother, she was considered to have had a miraculous conception." How does having a miraculous conception equate to her being a virgin?

Manali says "The reason this gets mentioned as a point of similarity, I guess, is not to point that mothers in both cases were a virgin. And its not said anywhere that Devaki the mother of Krishna was a virgin. I think the point of similarity is that like Jesus, Krishna was not Devaki's child, but son of god, whom she conceived miraculously."

I agree that their both being conceived miraculously is a point of similarity, but the Christ-myther claim of Krishna being "born of a virgin on December 25" is still not true on either point.

2. His human father was a carpenter

No, his human father (his only father, for that matter) was a man named Vasuveda. I have found no sources suggesting that he was a carpenter. I even did internet searches on the combination of "Vasuveda" and "Carpenter" in Google, Yahoo and Infoseek, and got no hits except for articles written about Krishna by people whose last names were 'Carpenter'. In fact, he was most likely a dairy farmer. In some versions of the Krishna story, his father is King Kansa (who is also not a carpenter), who is also Devaki's brother. Some web sites state that Kansa is Devaki's cousin or uncle, but followers assure me Kansa is Devaki's brother.

3. Father was off paying taxes when Krishna was born

No, his father, Vasuveda, was in prison with his mother when Krishna was born. Or in the versions in which King Kansa is Krishna's father, you wouldn't expect the king to be paying taxes.

4. Birth was signaled by a star in the East

I've found no mention of this in any Krishna story.

5. Birth was attended by angels and shepherds, was presented with spices

I found this site, written by a follower of Krishna, which gives the story of the birth of Krishna, and even makes some general comparisons between Krishna and Jesus (that they were both born of a woman, born in this world and were 'God-on-Earth'), yet it mentions nothing about angels, shepherds, or spices. I haven't found such comparisons anywhere else, either. Manali points out that Krishna was visited by cowherds after his birth, since his family was in the dairy business.

6. A ruling tyrant ordered the slaughtering of thousands of infants upon hearing of Krishna's birth

While there is a parallel here, it's not the one the critics claim. According to Manali, "after Kansa failed to kill Krishna, and came to know that the baby has been born and is living somewhere, he called upon his army to search the entire city of Mathura and its suburbs, to find and kill all the infants born in the same period as Krishna. Thus he ended up killing several infants, and there are several stories of how miraculously Krishna as a baby escaped the killings." So it was "several" infants, not thousands. Also, the number of infants killed by Herod when he found out about Jesus couldn't have been much more than about twenty according to most scholars, so it wasn't "thousands" there, either. So replace "thousands of" with "several" in the claim, and there is a parallel. However, the earliest version of this story in the Krishna tradition probably dates from the 4th to 6th century A.D., well after the Jesus story had been in circulation. Some date the Krishna story as early as 2nd century A.D., but even this is after the Gospel accounts were written.

7. Was anointed with oil on the head by a woman he healed

I can't find any such incident in any version of the Krishna story.

8. Was depicted as having his foot on the head of a snake

Again, this cannot be found in any version of the story.

9. Worked miracles: raised the dead, healed lepers, healed the deaf, healed the blind

He worked miracles, but I have yet to find any references to his raising the dead, or healing lepers, the deaf or the blind. Acharya S has no footnotes for this claim, so apparently she can't find the references, either.

10. Taught in parables

One of the Hindu followers who responded says he knows the Krishna story very well, and he says that Krishna did not use parables.

11. Krishna lived poor and loved the poor

The two Hindu followers who responded to this page disagree slightly on this. The first one said that "Krishna never lived as a poor person. The Yadav Caste (of which Krishna was a member) are dairy farmers, and, since milk is an important commodity, they have always been quite wealthy by Indian standards". The second responder, Manali, says that "Krishna did live poor during parts of his childhood, when he was under the care of foster parents. When Kansa's reign ended and he was welcomed back into the royal family, he never lived poor again."

But when we say that Jesus "lived poor", we're talking about his entire life, childhood and adulthood, so this isn't a comparison. Besides that, many people throughout history have lived poor and loved the poor, it's not hard to believe that Krishna and/or Jesus may have been among them.

12. Castigated the clergy and charged them with hypocrisy and ambition.

Again, not found in any version.

13. Was transfigured in front of his disciples

Again, not found in any version

14. Gave his disciples the ability to work miracles

Ditto.

15. Krishna's path was "strewn with branches"

Ditto.

16. Some traditions held that he was crucified between two thieves

Critics claim this, but never back it up. The only method of demise that I can find is his being shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow, and then either died or disappeared. If anyone out there can give me an example of a tradition in which he is crucified, please let me know. Acharya S's footnote on this one makes claims about other mythological figures being crucified, but makes no mention of Krishna being crucified.

The forementioned Jacolliot does make the claim of Krishna being affixed to a tree with arrows after he was killed, but doesn't mention anything about two thieves, and since Krishna was already dead and no crucifix was involved, this was hardly a crucifixion. And no one has ever been able to back up Jacolliot's claim, anyway, making it likely fraudulent. And even if not fraudulent, this story postdates Christianity by over 1800 years and was thus certainly influenced by Christianity.

17. Was killed around 30 yrs old and the sun darkened at his death

According to tradition, Krishna was 125 when he died. Only off by 95 years! And there's nothing about the sun darkening at his death.

18. Rose from the dead and ascended to heaven

The closest parallel comes in some later versions in which Krishna's body turned into a log-like image which floated around the East coast of India, finally ending up in a temple in the town of Puri. But he neither rose from the dead or ascended to Heaven.

19. Was depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet.

Only in post-Christian times.

20. Was called: Shepherd of God, Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin-Bearer, Liberator, and Universal Word

He was called the "Shepherd God", only because, unlike Jesus, he actually WAS a shepherd. Jesus was a shepherd only metaphorically. I cannot find any record of the other names.

21. Was deemed: Our Lord and Savior and Son of God, who came to earth to die for the salvation of man

He was never referred to by these titles.

22. Was the second person of a trinity

Sort of. The first Hindu follower who responded to this site states, "That Krishna is an avtar of Vishnu would make him the second god of the Hindu threesome". However, he also acknowledges that the form of the threesome has changed over the years, and besides that, "The Hindu threesome cannot be equated even remotely with the Christian trinity." The Hindu trinity is three separate beings, not the three-in-one of the Christian trinity.

23. Was called: Jezeus/Jeseus by his disciples

The source for this appears to be the forementioned Jacolliot, and thus postdates Christianity. Besides that, remember that Jesus' Hebrew name was Yeshua. Jesus is only the English pronunciation. So even if true, this one is essentially meaningless.

24. Krishna will return to judge the dead and will do battle with the "Prince of Evil." The Earth will be desolated.

This is another claim originating with Jacolliot and cannot be dated to earlier than the 19th century. Nor is it backed up by any evidence besides Jacolliot's claim.

Manali pointed me to these two passages in the "Bhagvad Gita":

"whenever there is a fall of sustenance; when it goes down, the righteousness falls off, to kill, to destroy these horrible negative forces: to save and sustain the saints, I come in every age in human form."

"To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium."

Manali says that Krishna is born into a new body in order to return (reincarnation), so this does not compare to Jesus, who is said to be returning in the same body He had in the 1st century.

Links:

Hare Krishna Home Page

Encyclopedia Mythica: Krishna

Indian Mythology

Probert Encyclopedia: Hindu Mythology

Wikipedia: Krishna

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

[Sunofone]

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.

1. Born of a Virgin on December 25

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

Edited July 4, 2007 by Sunofone

[conspiracy clothes]

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--

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.

Edited July 4, 2007 by conspiracy clothes

[karl 12]

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.

Heres part three-its very interesting viewing!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...h&plindex=2

Edited July 4, 2007 by karl 12

[The-Doctor]

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.

[jaylemurph]

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

[The-Doctor]

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.

[conspiracy clothes]

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.

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.

[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.

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

--Jaylemurph

[The-Doctor]

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.

[Elgin]

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

[Sunofone]

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

Most of the first part of the film is linked in one way or another to Jesus being born on December 25th and how this links in with winter solstice celebrations. The problem is that one thing pretty much all scholars agree on, skeptical and believers alike, is that Jesus was not born on December 25th. The NT describes the shepherds in the fields with their sheep at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) which would have been highly unlikely on December 25, and points more to the spring. The reason we celebrate December 25th is because a couple of centuries after the birth of Christ the church set that date deliberately to replace the Winter solstice celebrations, so of course there is a parallel to the winter solstice, but not for the reasons implied in the film. With this fact alone most of the first half of this part of the film falls apart.

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

the church set that date deliberately to replace the Winter solstice celebrations

then makes the bold assertion

but not for the reasons implied in the film.

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"

The “Sun of God” wears a corona, a “crown of thorns,” or halo.

Figure 1 - The Crown of Thorns and a Solar Corona

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!

Edited July 16, 2007 by Sunofone

[The-Doctor]

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.

[Sunofone]

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?

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?!?

Edited July 16, 2007 by Sunofone

[The-Doctor]

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

Edited July 16, 2007 by Doctor_Who