[itachi-san]

I recently watched the film Zeitgeist, the first part of which discusses the mythology progression from Ra (Horus) 3,000 B.C. to Jesus and how most religions have essentially the same Sun God and Jesus is no exception. This short film on religion can be seen here in 3 parts.

I've been doing some research lately and haven't found everything mentioned in the film (maybe it's not all accurate), but it still offers a very intriguing idea. Basically, the point is that Jesus is really the latest in a long line of Sun Gods who all share similar traits: Born of a virgin on December 25th (right after the Winter Solstice), dead for 3 days and resurrected (like the Sun during the Solstice), many many similar nicknames (Lamb of God and Alpha and Omega for instance), the ages certain life events took place, the disciples, the miracles, the Ages, etc...

Also mentioned is that most of the mythology surrounding each God is based almost entirely on the constellations, the Astrological calender and the seasons. An interesting example would be the 3 Kings equated to Orion's Belt following the brightest Star (Sirius) to point directly at the rising sun after the Winter Solstice. Also, the Jesus fish representing the Age of Pisces that Jesus has become the Sun God for.

The film mentions some things I don't believe also, like Jesus having never existed. I believe Jesus did exist and his tale just got blown out of proportion.

Anyway, really provocative video, post your responses and let's see what's accurate and what's not

Maybe we should just worship th Sun on Sunday...

Edited May 27, 2008 by itachi-san

[onetruth]

Only time for a quick response...Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. His date of birth was never given, but considering the season and historicity it was likely closer to August. December 25th had nothing to do with Jesus' birth, other than an attempt at taking over a pagan celebration (silly people).

[Guest]

alot of the film is based on nothing, and the first part in particular really made me think...

I truly believe this is where religion stems from, and think that god did come from the sun... As for Jesus, I agree with you that he may have existed as a magician, or con artist who used peoples naievity to make them believe he had power, or he was just a nut who truly believed this and his own self importance. I think science has pretty much disproven religions teachings, and was brought about to keep people in line, and there is nothing wrong with that, but this force of good and evil needed to be personified for people to want to be good, and also fear the punishment if they are bad. In reality we all just die and rot in the end. I believe there is some truth to the movie, mainly the first section...

but as for the government and 911... I believe the south park interpretation.

[Brandonb]

I recently watched the film Zeitgeist, the first part of which discusses the mythology progression from Ra (Horus) 3,000 B.C. to Jesus and how most religions have essentially the same Sun God and Jesus is no exception. This short film on religion can be seen here in 3 parts.

I've been doing some research lately and haven't found everything mentioned in the film (maybe it's not all accurate), but it still offers a very intriguing idea. Basically, the point is that Jesus is really the latest in a long line of Sun Gods who all share similar traits: Born of a virgin on December 25th (right after the Winter Solstice), dead for 3 days and resurrected (like the Sun during the Solstice), many many similar nicknames (Lamb of God and Alpha and Omega for instance), the ages certain life events took place, the disciples, the miracles, the Ages, etc...

Also mentioned is that most of the mythology surrounding each God is based almost entirely on the constellations, the Astrological calender and the seasons. An interesting example would be the 3 Kings equated to Orion's Belt following the North Star (Sirius) to point directly at the rising sun after the Winter Solstice. Also, the Jesus fish representing the Age of Pisces that Jesus has become the Sun God for.

The film mentions some things I don't believe also, like Jesus having never existed. I believe Jesus did exist and his tale just got blown out of proportion.

Anyway, really provocative video, post your responses and let's see what's accurate and what's not

I watched this video a few months ago. I've found alot of the stuff in the video to be completely bogus. Do a few hours of research and you'll see that the video does point out many interesting facts (though there are some bold-faced fallacies) but the facts are tied together just like the DaVinci Code. IE a little truth here, a little truth there, then tied together with a nice imaginary bow.

And speaking of the DaVinci code, I don't remember how in depth the movie goes to explain the whole Constantine thing. If I remember correctly, the time of the year where the celebrations coincide was a deliberate scheduling by Constantine I (the Great) so that the Christians and the Pagans could celebrate together. It was an attempt at unifying the two cultures and also to convert the pagans to Christianity. The movie plays out as if these things were inherent in the original life of Jesus and in the bible, they were not.

I did find the "Age of Aquarius" thing very interesting though, I never did much research on it. Though I do remember the references the movie makes towards the various mentioning of fish in the bible was very thin to make such a huge grasp at the theory associated with it.

Most of the rest of the movie was pretty bogus though. It actually disproves itself at one point in the twin tower section. It flashes a picture of a cut steel beam for just a second. Too bad it wasn't taken at the 911 site .

Overall I really have a hard time figuring out what to believe in that movie, because so much of it is flat out lies. Example: Do research on the various "Jesus figures" in the first section of the movie. It states complete lies about various religious figure heads. Which again blurs the lines about how much of the movie is true.

So when it comes to such broad false conspiracy propaganda, I choose to just condemn the whole damn movie. Though not all of it is a lie, zeitgeist still qualifies as a crock of $h!t in my book.

[itachi-san]

I watched this video a few months ago. I've found alot of the stuff in the video to be completely bogus. Do a few hours of research and you'll see that the video does point out many interesting facts (though there are some bold-faced fallacies) but the facts are tied together just like the DaVinci Code. IE a little truth here, a little truth there, then tied together with a nice imaginary bow.

And speaking of the DaVinci code, I don't remember how in depth the movie goes to explain the whole Constantine thing. If I remember correctly, the time of the year where the celebrations coincide was a deliberate scheduling by Constantine I (the Great) so that the Christians and the Pagans could celebrate together. It was an attempt at unifying the two cultures and also to convert the pagans to Christianity. The movie plays out as if these things were inherent in the original life of Jesus and in the bible, they were not.

I did find the "Age of Aquarius" thing very interesting though, I never did much research on it. Though I do remember the references the movie makes towards the various mentioning of fish in the bible was very thin to make such a huge grasp at the theory associated with it.

Most of the rest of the movie was pretty bogus though. It actually disproves itself at one point in the twin tower section. It flashes a picture of a cut steel beam for just a second. Too bad it wasn't taken at the 911 site .

Overall I really have a hard time figuring out what to believe in that movie, because so much of it is flat out lies. Example: Do research on the various "Jesus figures" in the first section of the movie. It states complete lies about various religious figure heads. Which again blurs the lines about how much of the movie is true.

So when it comes to such broad false conspiracy propaganda, I choose to just condemn the whole damn movie. Though not all of it is a lie, zeitgeist still qualifies as a crock of $h!t in my book.

When you have a moment, if you, or anyone for that matter, could site a few errors you have found in the film I would appreciate it. I started by looking up the myth of Horus and Ra and found some inconsistencies that lead me to believe that a lot of that part is bogus, but that part only constitutes about .5% of the film. Are there some really substantial errors you can site?

[itachi-san]

Only time for a quick response...Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. His date of birth was never given, but considering the season and historicity it was likely closer to August. December 25th had nothing to do with Jesus' birth, other than an attempt at taking over a pagan celebration (silly people).

If you do get around to watching it, the film actually states that it is a date appointed to be Jesus' birthday. Since the film also tries to prove he never existed, I assume that they would say every characteristic, story and deed of Jesus has been 'appointed'

[Brandonb]

When you have a moment, if you, or anyone for that matter, could site a few errors you have found in the film I would appreciate it. I started by looking up the myth of Horus and Ra and found some inconsistencies that lead me to believe that a lot of that part is bogus, but that part only constitutes about .5% of the film. Are there some really substantial errors you can site?

Granted is has been several months since I watched the movie, off the top of my head the part about... I think it was Attius? Something like that, he supposedly was crucified and resurrected according to zeitguist. Well, I did some research, and unless the creator of zeitguist accidentally ate too many shrooms and misinterpreted "Self-Castration and bleed to death under a tree" as Crucifixion, and then misinterpreted the part about a Woman (I don't remember who in the story) who days later used the dismembered member to get herself pregnant, to be the same thing as resurrection... then I'm pretty sure that it must have been a deliberate attempt to strengthen a story through the use of figure heads hat people do not know.

Then there was also a part about some (hindu I think is was?) god/prophet that was also crucified and was resurrected, and had apostles and stuff. The story for that one was something along the lines of him being a great warrior who was accidentally killed by the arrow of a hunter and died sitting at the base of a tree. Then the hunter saw the prophet's soul rise into the sky. No resurrection, no apostles, no crucifixion. And as I recall I just checked up on the first 5 or so references that the movie made and they all had some or all of their facts about these religions dead wrong.

That's just in reference to the Jesus part. I can watch the movie again and get back to you on others sometime if you want.

[itachi-san]

Granted is has been several months since I watched the movie, off the top of my head the part about... I think it was Attius? Something like that, he supposedly was crucified and resurrected according to zeitguist. Well, I did some research, and unless the creator of zeitguist accidentally ate too many shrooms and misinterpreted "Self-Castration and bleed to death under a tree" as Crucifixion, and then misinterpreted the part about a Woman (I don't remember who in the story) who days later used the dismembered member to get herself pregnant, to be the same thing as resurrection... then I'm pretty sure that it must have been a deliberate attempt to strengthen a story through the use of figure heads hat people do not know.

Then there was also a part about some (hindu I think is was?) god/prophet that was also crucified and was resurrected, and had apostles and stuff. The story for that one was something along the lines of him being a great warrior who was accidentally killed by the arrow of a hunter and died sitting at the base of a tree. Then the hunter saw the prophet's soul rise into the sky. No resurrection, no apostles, no crucifixion. And as I recall I just checked up on the first 5 or so references that the movie made and they all had some or all of their facts about these religions dead wrong.

That's just in reference to the Jesus part. I can watch the movie again and get back to you on others sometime if you want.

Well, the thing is that this is all from the same 1 minute section as the Horus errors I found. I think that section is totally awful and never should have been included in the film. However, it's only about a minute or two and the whole film is about 25 minutes. I gathered that the main points of the film were the astrology, astronomy, Biblical references, Ages, and a new religious leader (Sun God) every Age. Jesus would be this Age, Pisces. And that what a lot of people have interpreted to be Armageddon is actually just the end of this Age. Is there anything wrong in any of those sections?

[Brandonb]

Well, the thing is that this is all from the same 1 minute section as the Horus errors I found. I think that section is totally awful and never should have been included in the film. However, it's only about a minute or two and the whole film is about 25 minutes. I gathered that the main points of the film were the astrology, astronomy, Biblical references, Ages, and a new religious leader (Sun God) every Age. Jesus would be this Age, Pisces. And that what a lot of people have interpreted to be Armageddon is actually just the end of this Age. Is there anything wrong in any of those sections?

While doing some more research on the movie I came across (as was expected I guess) a conspiracy theory website where they have been debating this subject for the past year. I only read the first page, but from that alone you get some great arguments other than just pointing out the blatant lies with the religious figure head parallels. You can check it out Here. If you don't want to read the whole thing and just get down to some of the counter arguments I recommend post #20 (Jul 9 2007, 07:22 PM).

I prefer to believe that "Armageddon" is in fact just the end of this age. It's not really possible to debunk, and it holds a lot of reasoning power behind it. I mean, on the opposite side of the world from where this movie draws from its astrological findings, the Mayans came up with an almost identical calender that shows the end of days at about the same time (2012?), give or take a couple decades.

The worst part about his this movie, above all else, is that it doesn't have any references! It makes so many claims throughout the movie, but on the actual website it only points to various conspiracy theory books as the sole points of reference. One can't say that this whole movie is a lie, but it's certainly not "the truth" as it says it is.

[Guest]

What is interesting is that someone sets a riddle on this site and it's interpreted in many ways and we know the riddle is being evasive. When you look at the many interpretations and how so many answers seem to have a correct/true outcome against the riddle then you can see how other interpretations may have developed. In days so far gone all these things had to be written in a coded/riddle/puzzle form due to laws of heresy and the like. Will we ever be certain that we can interpret these expression which have been rewritten and translated too.

Either way these subjects make very interesting reading and hopefully i will view your link before too long.

[Guest]

While doing some more research on the movie I came across (as was expected I guess) a conspiracy theory website where they have been debating this subject for the past year. I only read the first page, but from that alone you get some great arguments other than just pointing out the blatant lies with the religious figure head parallels. You can check it out Here. If you don't want to read the whole thing and just get down to some of the counter arguments I recommend post #20 (Jul 9 2007, 07:22 PM).

I only watched the first part, and it was terrible. I made a list of items to do research on, but after I took a look at the link you sent, I'm not going to bother. You're right, post 20 was a good starting point. Obviously, the fact that some poster's father had not heard of some of the supposed information is in no way conclusive, but the copious blatant mistakes made it clear that the makers of the film weren't interested in presenting an argument based on fact. They were interested in selling a sensationalist idea that appeals to weak-minded anti-religionists and conspiracy theorists (not that I think all anti-religionists or conspiracy theorists are weak-minded, of course, but reasonable people wouldn't give Zeitgeist the time of day).

In any case, reading through that thread made me really appreciate the sanity of the atheists and others who debate on Brain Den. At least we can discuss ideas without the utter stupidity of fallacy-laden generalizations and name calling.

[itachi-san]

While doing some more research on the movie I came across (as was expected I guess) a conspiracy theory website where they have been debating this subject for the past year. I only read the first page, but from that alone you get some great arguments other than just pointing out the blatant lies with the religious figure head parallels. You can check it out Here. If you don't want to read the whole thing and just get down to some of the counter arguments I recommend post #20 (Jul 9 2007, 07:22 PM).

I prefer to believe that "Armageddon" is in fact just the end of this age. It's not really possible to debunk, and it holds a lot of reasoning power behind it. I mean, on the opposite side of the world from where this movie draws from its astrological findings, the Mayans came up with an almost identical calender that shows the end of days at about the same time (2012?), give or take a couple decades.

The worst part about his this movie, above all else, is that it doesn't have any references! It makes so many claims throughout the movie, but on the actual website it only points to various conspiracy theory books as the sole points of reference. One can't say that this whole movie is a lie, but it's certainly not "the truth" as it says it is.

Cool, thanks. This link was exactly what I was looking for. The crappy part is that the filmmaker had enough factual and reasonable material to make a pretty decent movie, but instead of looking for more facts they chose to heavily embellish with lies. I feel like they should have only talked about Jesus because the sections on other religions are so completely untrue and skewed that they take away from the interesting parts like the constellations, Pisces references, and Winter Solstice concept. I also prefer the end of the Age to the end of the World obviously. I also think it makes more sense though. Thanks for taking the time.

[itachi-san]

I only watched the first part, and it was terrible. I made a list of items to do research on, but after I took a look at the link you sent, I'm not going to bother. You're right, post 20 was a good starting point. Obviously, the fact that some poster's father had not heard of some of the supposed information is in no way conclusive, but the copious blatant mistakes made it clear that the makers of the film weren't interested in presenting an argument based on fact. They were interested in selling a sensationalist idea that appeals to weak-minded anti-religionists and conspiracy theorists (not that I think all anti-religionists or conspiracy theorists are weak-minded, of course, but reasonable people wouldn't give Zeitgeist the time of day).

In any case, reading through that thread made me really appreciate the sanity of the atheists and others who debate on Brain Den. At least we can discuss ideas without the utter stupidity of fallacy-laden generalizations and name calling.

As I've stated throughout this thread, I don't believe or care for plenty of the film. But at the same time, I think not giving something like this the time of day is the wrong approach here. Ignoring things like this does not help. What helps is talking about them and sorting through the truth and lies. By doing this, for instance, I will now be able to better explain to my friends (who showed me this movie a couple days ago) what they should take away from this and to not fall so easily for these sensationalist mock-u-mentaries. And in the film's barely existent defense, it does raise a small handful of legitimately interesting ideas, at least to me. i.e. the constellations, astrology and Pisces stuff, etc... -could definitely use some valid sources though... 2 thumbs down

[Guest]

As I've stated throughout this thread, I don't believe or care for plenty of the film. But at the same time, I think not giving something like this the time of day is the wrong approach here. Ignoring things like this does not help. What helps is talking about them and sorting through the truth and lies. By doing this, for instance, I will now be able to better explain to my friends (who showed me this movie a couple days ago) what they should take away from this and to not fall so easily for these sensationalist mock-u-mentaries. And in the film's barely existent defense, it does raise a small handful of legitimately interesting ideas, at least to me. i.e. the constellations, astrology and Pisces stuff, etc... -could definitely use some valid sources though... 2 thumbs down

Fair enough. However, what is the goal of trying to tie astrology to the recorded events of Jesus' life? It's clearly to show that the human writers of the account of Jesus borrowed their ideas from already existing religious beliefs based on the sun and stars. Since the Bible, from start to finish, claims to be a source of true information about God, and denounces all pagan belief, including astrology and sun worship, as being completely valueless, then it would be strange indeed for the Bible's writers to try to weave astrology myths into their account of Jesus.

You have to understand that there is a huge difference between what the Bible teaches and what religions teach that claim to be based on the Bible. Christmas, Easter, hellfire, the Trinity, the cross, and many other aspects of modern Christianity are absolutely the result of infusing ancient pagan beliefs based on astrology into religion based on the Bible. Hence, it is not hard to note many accurate parallels between astrology and modern Christianity. To suggest that the crown of thorns, the virgin birth of Jesus, the selection of 12 apostles, the name Bethlehem, and the name Mary (which are all recorded in the Bible) are based on astrology is ridiculous, and is not based on anything substantial.

Incidentally, the Bible does not say that three kings followed a star in the east to Jesus. It does not state the number of magi, and it says they came from the east, which means they would have had to follow a star in the west. This is just one simple example of how the writers clearly (and I would say intentionally) misrepresented the information to try to make it fit. I have no interest in arguing against reasoning which is not based on anything. If you want to do research and find actual parallels between astrology and the Bible, I'd be happy to debate it. As much as there is in the Bible, to suggest that astrology is basis for the whole thing is absolutely inane and shows a serious lack of understanding of what the Bible really says.

Edit: And as for Pisces ... the use of the fish as a symbol for Christianity is not in the Bible. Some have suggested that it is based on accounts of Jesus involving fish, and served as a secret identifying mark of Christians when they were being persecuted by the Romans, but the fact that there's a constellation shaped like a fish has no connection with this. There's a constellation shaped like a lot of animals, and there are numerous astrological myths, so it doesn't take any great mental genius to find elements in one story that are going to have "parallels" in another. Totally meaningless.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Duh Puck