Zeitgeist

[Steve Gardner]

I've already linked to this film in the Where Does The Money Come From? thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

Zeitgeist

It is flawed - no question about that - but that doesn't mean it's all wrong. I guess it's up to people to watch it, delve deeper into the issues it raises and then exercise their own judgement.

[teddy]

Steve, I’ve just watched this in full (I had seen parts of it before in sections).

What flaws would you highlight? The explanation of Jesus originating from other myths is very interesting, and there seems a clear link with astrology and astronomy. The theory that the ages (as a result of the precession of the equinoxes) and the coming of Jesus and other prophets seems very convincing to me, at first glance. Perhaps it has been over-simplified in some of the facts. I did a spot check on some of the gods (e.g. Horus) that the author claims Jesus was based on. It’s not easy to verify all the facts, such as Horus being born on the 25th December, born of a virgin, and so on. Some of the information does appear to be verified, and perhaps other information requires more research. I have read the book “The Jesus Dynasty” by James D. Tabor which seems to document historically fairly well the life of Jesus, based on local journalists of the time, and so at least one claim in this film, that no historical record of Jesus exists, appears false to me, unless the book I read was flawed.

I thought the 9/11 part was fairly well done. The mechanism by which international bankers earn money from Governments was not well explained, but the rest of the subject on banking was very good I thought. There were some very interesting quotes in general, most of which I’d seen before, and in particular the JF Kennedy speech was very fittingly placed and very convincing, giving us a real insight into what JFK was referring to. What is amazing with the various quotes is that all the information of a conspiracy is there if we choose not to ignore it. Similarly the media often stumble on aspects of a conspiracy without realising it, and quite willing report it before that news item disappears never to be seen again on TV, but of course is picked up on the Internet.

Overall a great film, and perhaps the best there is out there that gives the full picture, not just in recent times but in history too. I’d be interested to hear what you think are the main flaws.

[Steve Gardner]

teddy said:

Overall a great film, and perhaps the best there is out there that gives the full picture, not just in recent times but in history too. I’d be interested to hear what you think are the main flaws.

I agree - a really good film overall.

Perhaps 'flaws' was the wrong expression; a better one would have been 'unsubstantiated claims'. These occur principally in part one, which has been criticised because of the parallels it draws between the story of Jesus and other figures such as Horos.

Rather than pretend I identified them myself, I'll quote an interesting comment that was posted in Unexplained Mysteries. It was challeged by a Zeitgeist disciple (pun intended), but I think the poster raises some intersting points.

That said, I only accept the criticisms made about the film's claims concerning the parallels between Jesus, Horos et al. In my view, it is pretty clear that Jesus is, in effect, a personification of astronomical events.

Posted by The-Doctor - Jul 9 2007, 07:22 PM

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 backtogether 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:

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.

[Steve Gardner]

The makers of Zeitgeist are organisaing an awareness day and are encouraging those who have already watched the documentary to hold both public and private screenings.

It's a massive undertaking and the response thus far has been considerable. Here's the message from the official site. Visit this site for details about how to arrange your own event and this one for a list of scheduled viewings.