ZEITGEIST: The Movie

[NattyLight]

Chomp on this.

Two hour movie, three parts. Religion, 9/11, World Banks. Absolutely pummels a Michael Moore flick. I just watched it, it was completely worth it.

Enjoy.

[herb mul-key]

www.zeitgeistmovie.com a streaming movie...WOW... I watched this over the weekend...holy smokes...you folks who have unwavering faith in Jesus and the Christian Church are going to croak, those who wonder will have many questions answered...this streaming movie poses many explanations that the political, financial and religious elite would not like you to ponder...

This will be an interesting thread...please watch this streaming movie and post reviews

[Zguy28]

holy smokes...

That pretty much sums it up. The smoke part that is.

you folks who have unwavering faith in Jesus and the Christian Church are going to croak

Umm. Probably not.

Especially when these were the primary sources of info:

Massey, Gerald - The Historic Jesus and the Mythical Christ, The Book Tree

Carpenter, Edward: Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning Book Tree, 1998

Acharya S - The Christ Conspiracy, Adventures Unlimited Press

Massey, Gerald - Ancient Egypt: Light of the World, Kessinger Publishing

Churchward, Albert -The Origin and Evolution of Religion, The Book Tree

Acharya S - Suns of God, Adventures Unlimited Press

Murdock, D.M. - Who was Jesus?, Steller House Publishing

Allegro, John - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Prometheus Books

Frazer, Sir James: The Golden Bough, Touchstone Pub., 1890

Maxwell, Tice, Snow - That Old Time Religion, The Book Tree

Rolleston, Frances: Mazzaroth, Rivingtons, Waterloo Place, 1862

Cumont, Franz: Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans Cosimo Classics 1912

King James Version, The Holy Bible, Holman

Fideler, David: Jesus Christ, Sun of God Quest Books, 1993

Berry, Gerald: Religions Of The World, Barnes & Noble Pub., 1965

Leedom, Tim C - The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, TS Books

Paine, Thomas - The Age of Reason

Wheless, Joseph: Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion 1930Remsburg, John E. - The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, Prometheus Books

Massey, Gerald - Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Mysteries of Amenta, Kessinger Publishing

Irvin, Jan & Rutajit, Andrew - Astrotheology and Shamanism, The Book Tree

Doherty, Earl - The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Pub.Campbell, Joseph - Creative Mythology: The Masks of God, PenguinDoane, T.W. - Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, Health Research Maxwell, Jordan: The Light of World (Film Series) IRESSingh, Madanjeet: The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life, UNESCO, 1993Flemming, Brian: The God Who Wasn't There (Film)2005

The Naked Truth (Film) IRESJackson, John G. : Christianity Before Christ, American Atheist Press, 1985

[techboy]

I'll be honest with you. I tried to watch it, but the first 5 minutes bored me, so I fast forwarded.

When I got to the part that asserted that Jesus was not an historical personage, an idea that no credible historian of the period I have ever read, Christian or secular (or atheist, for that matter), would find anything less than laughable, I stopped.

Putting together patterns that seem to make sense without deeper analysis doesn't make something true, though it does hook a lot of conspiracy theorists, given the tendency of human psychology to see patterns even when they are not there (it's a survival trait).

I figured that if that part was so incredibly wrong, and with no credible sources (no, Acharya S doesn't count), I don't need to bother watching the rest.

[NattyLight]

Seriously though, is an astrological-based explanation for the building blocks and evolution of religion [christianity] that hard to swallow? Is it ludicrous and completely off-base? If your answers to these questions are a resounding "yes", then I'm sorry, you know nothing about the history of man and faith.

If that concept doesn't jive with you, cool. But the premise of Part I of the movie is quite thought-provoking. Am I accepting it as "gospel"? No. Because NONE OF US OF THE CAPACITY OR ABILITY OF RETROSIGHT TO TRULY KNOW. However, it is interesting and a plausible basis for a faith, not falsehood, that has shaped the world in which we know.

Think to yourself this: will christianity exist in 500, 1000, 2000 years? Sure, maybe as a heredic, archaic faith. That's about it.

[techboy]

Seriously though, is an astrological-based explanation for the building blocks and evolution of religion [christianity] that hard to swallow?

Yes.

Is it ludicrous and completely off-base?

Yes.

If your answers to these questions are a resounding "yes", then I'm sorry, you know nothing about the history of man and faith.

Actually, if your answers aren't yes, then you know nothing of the history of the time period.

I'd suggest reading, among other articles, Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying, by Dr. Gary Habermas. Keep in mind that this is a survey of critical (i.e. non-Christian) scholars.

I like to quote this section:

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

Please keep in mind that Dr. Ehrman is not a Christian. He is a skeptic.

Not only is it an historical certainty (insofar that we can be certain of anything, historically) that Jesus existed, it is also an historical fact that the earliest Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus, which makes the myth theory ridiculous on its face.

Further, the section on Jesus is riddled with errors. mardi_gras_skin addresses a few of the more glaring ones here.

There are many others, but I'd have to watch the film again, transcribe it, and then respond, and I don't see the point when practically nobody in the community of scholars takes the "Jesus myth" theory seriously to begin with. It reminds me of a debate I watched. The affirmative proposed time travel, then crowed when the negative couldn't present evidence that time travel wasn't possible. What serious scientist would bother writing on the subject in the first place?

If there are any points people would like addressed, I'd be happy to, but it's just a washed-up, rehashed, roundly discredited theory warmed over for internet audiences who don't know any better. It gets brought up from time to time, and every time, scholars of all stripes shoot it down.

[thehogs]

I watched so far the religous section. I dont believe in God, may as well be the tooth fairy as far as I'm concerned. Interesting stuff, some of which I knew - the flood from ancient texts is well documented. The Bible has clearly lifted this from older texts and used it in the story of Noah and the Ark. Having read some - not all - of the Bible I couldnt help notice myself the repetition in stories so that you begin to think hang on thats a similar story line to some other earlier book of the Bible or even text in other ancient books e.g. Joseph etc as they point out.

Still facts are facts, does it stack up? well, here are some of those links people will no doubt want:

Horus/Jesus/Sun worship

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

http://culturalvision.net/html/merry_mithras.html

most of it holds together but not all.

Three Kings/orion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_Orionis

possible but they are making a connection through what could be independent events i.e. 'look, this has to be the answer, doesnt it?..' well, no it doesnt actually.

There is a whole bunch of stuff about pre-Christian mid winter solstice festivals/ages now used in Christian festivals. You can look it up yourselves (!)

Evidence for Jesus/Josephus forgery

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm

thats less clear as an out and out forgery but does indicate some 'rewriting' probably going on.

as for 12 apostles, 10 commandments etc the Bible loves numbers and numerology. Numbers are important and symbolic in that respect.

interesting but nothing new to me I have to say. I might get around to the other sections (please tell me it doesnt dissolve into 'them' being responsible for 9/11. Please! :doh: )

One thing that always kills these ideas is that the film kicks off with stuff about astrology etc that might be correct but are presented as fact, the truth, no question. The problem here is that they are committing the same mistake they are accusing religions of in terms of the 'truth'. Very easy to shoot down that kind of argument.

[Ellis]

Minute 8-20 of the film is absolutely mind blowing.

The way it is broken down through history... 12 disciples, sun of God, etc...

Definitely makes ya think.

[zoony]

The force is strong with techboy.

...

[techboy]

I watched so far the religous section. I dont believe in God, may as well be the tooth fairy as far as I'm concerned. Interesting stuff, some of which I knew - the flood from ancient texts is well documented. The Bible has clearly lifted this from older texts and used it in the story of Noah and the Ark.

Or, maybe the Flood was real and simply reported in other sources as well as the Bible? It's certainly not a slam dunk by any stretch that the Hebrews lifted the story from other sources, and there are some good reasons to think that they couldn't have.

I address the point briefly here, though it's not really my area.

Having read some - not all - of the Bible I couldnt help notice myself the repetition in stories so that you begin to think hang on thats a similar story line to some other earlier book of the Bible or even text in other ancient books e.g. Joseph etc as they point out.

Still facts are facts, does it stack up? well, here are some of those links people will no doubt want:

Horus/Jesus/Sun worship

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

http://culturalvision.net/html/merry_mithras.html

most of it holds together.

Three Kings/orion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_Orionis

As I noted earlier, given that the early Christians really believed they had seen the Risen Jesus, it seems just a tad unlikely that they made Him up.

Further, scholars have long since abandoned the "parallels" approach to historical criticism, because if you look hard enough, parallels can be drawn from anything to anything.

The same logic can be used in this manner (taken from an excellent page on the "Jesus as Copycat" idea):

Look at this list of comparisons between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy:

1. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were elected to Congress in '46 (1846 in Lincoln's case, 1946 in Kennedy's). Both became President in '60.

2. Both had lazy eye muscles which would cause one eye to wander.

3. Both had been skippers on boats (Lincoln on the Mississippi river boat 'Talisman' and Kennedy on the PT-109)

4. Both were the second sons in their families. Each lost a sister to death before becoming President. Both married 24-year-old brunettes who had been previously engaged to other men, and who spoke French fluently.

5. Both had a child die while living in the White House.

6. Both were related to U.S. Senators, U.S. Attorney Generals who graduated from Harvard, and ambassadors to the Court of St. James.

7. Both were acquaintances of a man named Adlai E. Stevenson who ran for either Vice-President or President, a doctor named Charles Taft and a man named William Graham.

8. Both were advised not to go to the place where they died.

9. Both Lincoln's theater box and Kennedy's car were altered for their benefit (Lincoln's theater box had a partition removed to accomodate his party, Kennedy's car had a raised rear seat)

10. Both were slain on a Friday before a major Holiday (Lincoln on the Friday before Easter, Kennedy on the Friday before Thanksgiving). Both were shot while sitting next to their wives and in the presence of another couple. Of the other couple, the man was also wounded by the assassin, but neither wife was wounded.

11. Both were shot from behind and in the head. Both of their wives cradled their husband's heads after they were shot.

12. John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln from inside a theater, and fled to a warehouse. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy from inside a warehouse and fled to a theater.

13. Lincoln was shot while inside the Ford theater, in box 7. Kennedy was shot while inside a Ford automobile, in car 7 in the motorcade.

14. Both were pronounced dead in places with the initials P.H. (Lincoln in the Peterson House, and Kennedy in Parkland Hospital)

15. Both of their assassins escaped, and were killed before going to trial.

16. Both of their assassins were privates in the military. Each was detained after the shooting by a policeman named Baker. Both were eventually killed by a Colt revolver.

17. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were succeeded by southern ex-senators named Johnson who were born in '08. Both Johnsons were in their mid-fifties when they took the office and both suffered from urethral stones (the only presidents to have them). Both Johnsons could have run for re-election in '68, but chose not to.

By the logic of the critics, this list is absolute, undeniable proof that John F. Kennedy is a fictional character based on Abraham Lincoln.

As I noted earlier, it is a psychological trait in humans to look for patterns. In general, this is a helpful survival trait. Sometimes, though, it leads us to see things that are not there, be it pictures in clouds, or looney conspiracy theories.

It also turns out that the comparisons aren't even close to what is claimed in the video, as mardi_gras_skin points out in the link I provided above, and as even the religious tolerance webpage you linked notes when citing 10 different Egyptologists saying that Horus was not born of a virgin. I could go on (I addressed the inaccuracy of an attempted parallel to Mithras here, for instance), but I don't see the point. Paralellism ain't taken too seriously these days either, which is why I made the comment about warm-ed over, re-hashed, discredited theories peddled to those that don't know any better.

There is a whole bunch of stuff about pre-Christian mid winter solstice festivals/ages now used in Christian festivals. You can look it up yourselves (!)

True, though this happened after the formation of the Christian church as a recruitment tool, so also irrelevant.

Evidence for Jesus/Josephus forgery

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm

thats less clear as an out and out forgery but does indicate some 'rewriting' probably going on.

See, this is a perfect example of how historically inaccurate and disingenuous this film is. It is the consensus of scholarship today that the Josephus passage in question was likely later modified by Christians, but that the initial parts about His life were there. Rather than address this, the film dismisses the entire thing as a forgery (a conclusion with very little support in academia), and goes on to totally ignore the other passage in Josephus that makes reference to James, the brother of the Jesus who supposedly doesn't exist! Laughable, and emblematic of the kind of errors this film is riddled with.

as for 12 apostles, 10 commandments etc the Bible loves numbers and numerology. Numbers are important and symbolic in that respect

interesting but nothing new to me I have to say. I might get around to the other sections (please tell me it doesnt dissolve into 'them' being responsible for 9/11. Please! :doh: )

I don't know. I didn't make it that far.

[techboy]

Minute 8-20 of the film is absolutely mind blowing.

The way it is broken down through history... 12 disciples, sun of God, etc...

Definitely makes ya think.

If you liked that, you might be interested to know that Kennedy was a myth too. Free your mind! Fight the power!

[Ellis]

If you liked that, you might be interested to know that Kennedy was a myth too. Free your mind! Fight the power!

no the thing that I found interesting was that--if anything--the part of the zodiac signs and the Suns "Age", where it repeats it's cycle every 26,000 years broken down into 12 section only proves the validate religion. It's a measurement of mankind, rather than time.

[Zguy28]

Minute 8-20 of the film is absolutely mind blowing.

The way it is broken down through history... 12 disciples, Son of God, etc...

Definitely makes ya think.

I fixed that error for you.

Open your heart and mind to the Spirit of Truth.

[Ellis]

I fixed that error for you.

Open your heart and mind to the Spirit of Truth.

no I meant Sun of God.

[techboy]

interesting but nothing new to me I have to say. I might get around to the other sections (please tell me it doesnt dissolve into 'them' being responsible for 9/11. Please! :doh: )

I flipped ahead. If by "them" being responsible you mean that "9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration at the behest of the small group of bankers that run the Federal reserve who benefit financially from, and therefore attempt to trigger, various calamities" then the answer is yes.

At least, that's what I could piece together.

[herb mul-key]

techboy- your holier than thou personified...your clearly a strong believer in the christian religion...The George Carlin bit must have pissed you off...nothing you have written here has convinced me that the the Bible is fact...your trying hard tho...

just because it is claimed that people claimed to have seen a ressurected Jesus....

modern man has been around for some say what... 60,000-100,000 years?

I just see the Christian church as the winning team right now...they made a big play way back when for social, political control and power....and right about now a few groups (muslims) seem totally sick of it...somebody said it... will Christianity be the dominant religion 5,000 years from now????

It does make so much sense that people worshipped the son/sun and tracked it and studied the stars...the sun of God is "the light of the world" makes sense to me...the christian church never made sense to me, its good for people that need that community but don't give me this burning in hell and ten commandments crap...heaven and hell is what you can create of your life right now on earth

I also thought the Kennedy speech played before his killing was interesting...

and WTF is up with building 7 and the demolition pattern and the other bangs/explosions and Bush Cheney BS...I would like to see them in a hearing!

[zoony]

I just see the Christian church as the winning team right now...they made a big play way back when for social, political control and power....

I can think of better ways to gain control than offering up worship to a God who was not all-powerful, and was crucified by man.

Sounds like a tough sell, doesn't it? "Hey, come believe in our God! Where is he? umm... the Romans killed him."

Sounds like a tough sell, huh? So you think maybe if it was a power play, they'd come up with something better?

Besides, lining up at the coliseum steps to be eaten by Lions doesn't sound much like politicking to me... but hey, I've never been one for that kind of thing.

If logic is your game... be sure you see the entire field of play... :munchout:

....

[Ellis]

I don't think it's out of the question that building owners or designers are required to have their buildings equipped with explosives to bring a building down safely in the event of a natural disaster or as is the case of 9/11, an attack.

Sure that's a far fetched statement for me to make. I think there's a small ounce of truth to it. The goal would NOT be to bring a building down intentionally... but to minimize the chances of the building falling into other buildings and bringing THEM down. At best, it's a precautionary thing.

And for the record... I hate 9/11 conspiracies. As incompetent as most people on here think George W Bush is... I find amazing that many of you are so willing to give him credit for something that requires incredible thought and preparation... yet those same people think he's below a monkeys intelligence. LOL!

[techboy]

techboy- your holier than thou personified...

Sorry. Not my intention.

your clearly a strong believer in the christian religion...

True, but that only provides the motivation for responding. The scholars I reference are not. If you don't believe me, look it up for yourself. Try the Wikipedia article on "Jesus Myth", for instance, which notes that virtually all scholars reject the concept, if you'd like lighter reading.

The George Carlin bit must have pissed you off...

No, I think George Carlin is pretty funny, actually.

nothing you have written here has convinced me that the the Bible is fact...your trying hard tho...

Actually, I don't believe that I have attempted to make that case at all, though I certainly have in the past.

Right now, I'm just pointing out that the movie is riddled with errors and deceptions, and I don't need to believe that the Bible is the word of God to do that.

just because it is claimed that people claimed to have seen a ressurected Jesus....if modern man has been around for 60,000 years

I just see the Christian church as the winning team right now...they made a big play way back when for social, political control and power....

The Church did not become powerful until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

Given that the faith was completely established by then, and all the source documents well pre-date this, this seems largely irrelevant.

and right about now the Muslims seem totally sick of it...somebody said it... will Christianity be the dominant religion 5,000 years from now????

Possibly, possibly not. Is popular acceptance a standard for truth these days? If so, Zeitgeist must not be true...

It does make so much sense that people worshipped the son/sun and tracked it and studied the stars

Yes, it does. Many people, in fact, did just that. Historically, however, this group did not include the devout Jews (who were morally opposed to astrology and pagansism) who were the first Christians, and who, as a matter of historical record, believed they had encountered the risen Jesus.

I also thought the Kennedy speech played before his killing was interesting...

and WTF is up with building 7 and the demolition pattern and the other bangs/explosions and Bush Cheney BS...I would like to see them in a hearing!

The 9/11 conspiracy theories promoted in this film have been debunked numerous times right here on this site, and are yet another reason this film cannot be trusted.

Actually, I'd love it if somebody would take the thread in the direction of the Federal Reserve and 9/11. It really wasn't my intention to proselytize. Honest.

It's just that Jesus history is the area I am familiar with, and can speak (write?) semi-intelligently on.

[mardi gras skin]

herb, I just wanted to check in and see if you believe all the claims made in this movie. Do you think all the religious, political, and economic claims made in this movie are truthful?

[Zguy28]

I can think of better ways to gain control than offering up worship to a God who was not all-powerful, and was crucified by man.

Sounds like a tough sell, doesn't it? "Hey, come believe in our God! Where is he? umm... the Romans killed him."

Sounds like a tough sell, huh? So you think maybe if it was a power play, they'd come up with something better?

Besides, lining up at the coliseum steps to be eaten by Lions doesn't sound much like politicking to me... but hey, I've never been one for that kind of thing.

If logic is your game... be sure you see the entire field of play... :munchout:

....

Yes. Ever read "the Martyrdom of Polycarp"? Give's one an idea of what Christianity really is.

[Destino]

Truth is there is probably a lot of shady **** we don't know about. I think you can look around and get a sense that governments and institutions all subscribe to the belief that "we" shouldn't know "everything". The idea that "we" should only know a certain percentage of the truth... for our own good of course or for the ever present "national security" or something similar isn't even a foriegn concept. Many of you reading this (all or most, actually) agree with the idea.

Because of this I think this behavior is human and that provides a more reasonable theory then some big conspiracy. It's much more simple. They are all hiding a little bit because of a familiar sin - pride. They know whats best and they don't think you're as smart as they are. So they shape the truth for you and do what's best for you. They see it as the "right" thing to do and most would do the same.

No big centuries long scam. No conspiracy. Just humanity in all it's glory.

[NattyLight]

herb, I just wanted to check in and see if you believe all the claims made in this movie. Do you think all the religious, political, and economic claims made in this movie are truthful?

I think they are as truthful as the bible or any other scripture WRITTEN BY MAN or institutions / systems DICTATED BY MAN, which by definition (in terms or Christianity), are inherently fallible and motivated by sin.

I introduced this movie as to open people's mind to the fact that things aren't always what they seem to be. To think that America or Church (or any super power) at this stage in human development is an affluent construct for the good of all things is ****ing retarded.

If you choose to go through life living in a contrived safety structure fabricated by someone else years ago, please, be my guest; I'll still give you a hug after a solid Redskins win.

But look, there's number 1 in the world...and everyone else. There always has been and will continue to be so for quite some time. The Catholic church used to be number 1, and now it's the American military fueled by the domination of global resources. Soon, I hope, number 1 will be free-thought and a unified voice of all people.

Free freedom.

[Destino]

But look, there's number 1 in the world...and everyone else. There always has been and will continue to be so for quite some time. The Catholic church used to be number 1, and now it's the American military fueled by the domination of global resources. Soon, I hope, number 1 will be free-thought and a unified voice of all people.

Free freedom.

Do you fail to see the irony in a humanist pointing out the flaws in institutions created by man?

[diablo77]

the only thing that really got my attention was the section on income tax. how much truth in that. if all were to stop paying income tax what would happen. off the top of my head, we all would have a little more $but, who would pay for schools, roads, wars so on an so on.