ZEITGEIST: The Movie

[Chachie]

Coming in way late here, but I finally watched it.

I love a good conspiracy so I'm not going to try to sway anybody's opinion on all of it. I've always been on the paranoid tip.

I had already known about all of part 1. Religion has always been a mix of astrology and allegory.

Part 2 was basically "Fahrenheit 911" all over again. There is indeed a historically proven relationship between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens.

The whole Federal reserve thing was quite an eye-opener for me but I'd have to do more research before sounding off.

The European Union and the North American Union are already fact. An African Union is being pushed for. If an asian Union comes into play then there will basically be 4 "leaders" on Earth. That's quite a dramatic drop-off from the hundreds we have that constitute a "United Nations," which is already being ignored and rendered less relevant by our current administration. The Euro is rolling by now and the "Amero" is on it's way. The "RFID" card is already being instituted.

Let me ask all those who think this is hogwash two questions: After being warned for decades about George Orwell's "Big Brother," what will you do when asked to take a microchip in your body? How strong will your faith in our government be then?

[Zguy28]

The European Union and the North American Union are already fact. An African Union is being pushed for. If an asian Union comes into play then there will basically be 4 "leaders" on Earth.

I wonder how Russia's current state of affairs is affecting the conspiracy theorist's theories? :laugh:

Know where I can find a good used orgone blaster?

[NattyLight]

Wow. This movie just floored me. I want to thank whoever posted it.

You're welcome.

I still can't believe anyone is stupid enough to believe this BS. :doh:

I still can't believe that people think a virgin was encountered by a mythical angel from the heavens above and gave birth to the son of an omnipotent being who was killed, dead for three days, then "undied" to ascend to heaven to take a seat at the right hand of the father. And there was this dude, named Jesus, he could turn water in to wine dude...that is of course when he wasn't WALKING on water! Dude, I think this LSD is starting to kick in!

It's straight lunacy.

I'm not saying the principles that religion instills in people is bad, in fact, I think it's great! But the Bible, Koran, and what ever else are just stories man. Just stories.

[techboy]

I still can't believe that people think a virgin was encountered by a mythical angel from the heavens above and gave birth to the son of an omnipotent being who was killed, dead for three days, then "undied" to ascend to heaven to take a seat at the right hand of the father. And there was this dude, named Jesus, he could turn water in to wine dude...that is of course when he wasn't WALKING on water! Dude, I think this LSD is starting to kick in!

It's straight lunacy.

I'm not saying the principles that religion instills in people is bad, in fact, I think it's great! But the Bible, Koran, and what ever else are just stories man. Just stories.

Just so you understand, the reason the first section of this movie is total and complete garbage, which either unintentionally or intentionally (I can't decide which) outright lies about history, is not that it rejects the supernatural elements of the life of Jesus. Many critical scholars reject the supernatural elements reported in the Bible regarding the life of Jesus (virgin birth, healings, walking on water, Ressurection). John Dominic Crossan, for instance, who I have quoted earlier in this thread, rejects the bodily Ressurection, the Virgin Birth, and so on. In such areas, critical scholars are sharply divided, and generally it comes down to whether a person is a Christian or not (with only one weird exception that I know of), which makes sense if you think about it.

The reason this film is utter and complete anti-historical garbage is that it attempts to deny that Jesus is an historical personage, instead arguing that devout 1st Century Jews made Jesus up whole cloth by stealing from pagan mythologies like Horus. Do you not see how ridiculous that idea is, on its face?

It is utter and complete garbage because it cites not one legitimate source in making this ridiculous claim.

It is utter and complete garbage because it does things like lie about the nature of one Jospehus passage, while conveniently failing to mention the other, or all the other extra-Biblical Christian, Jewish, and pagan references to Jesus.

It is utter and complete garbage because the nearly universal consensus of scholars is that there were, in fact, no dying and ressurected god mythologies that predated Jesus in the Ancient Near East. Not Horus, not Osiris, not Mithras. None. * (I will address my backing for this point at the end of this thread)

It is further utter and complete garbage because no credible historian of the time period or New Testament scholar believes that Jesus was not an historical personage. I addressed this earlier. Please read my last post on the topic. The idea has no traction among people who know what they are talking about because, frankly, it is stupid. When the best expert supporting the idea is an expert in German, not history, you know there's a problem.

I'll repeat one more time. This film has no credible sources. It's claims are unsupported at best, and most of the time, soundly refuted by the entire academic community.

There are only two kinds of people who would take this film seriously. One is the kind of person who is genuinely unaware of the state of historical research in the area. The other is a person who starts with the pre-supposition that the Bible is crap, and is grasping for anything that supports that notion. This kind of person, ironically enough, reminds me very much of the fundamentalist Christian that believes it every time Noah's Ark is "discovered".

Somone earlier said that this can always be debated. Actually, no it can't. The debate is over. Parallelism lost. Modern scholarship has roundly rejected it. No one credible has seriously held to it since the 19th century. It can be debated only in the sense that whether or not the idea that the Earth is flat can be debated. The number of historians or New Testament scholars that support the idea that Jesus is a myth, by the way, is roughly equal to the number of astronomers and geologists that support the Flat Earth Society.

If anyone still wants to believe this stuff, fine, but do so knowing that you have not a leg to stand on, in terms of actual scholarship, a position, oddly enough, that will place you firmly shoulder to shoulder with certain fundamentalist Christians on certain issues.

*Regarding my earlier claim, it is interesting that this thread was bumped, because I was about to bump it myself. One of the latest treatments of this subject is The Riddle of Ressurection: "Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East" by T N D Mettinger, a pre-eminent Swedish scholar. In this book, he starts by saying that the nearly universal consensus of scholars in the field is that there were no "Ressurection Gods" before Jesus, but that he disagrees, and that there might be as many as five. After an exhaustive study, he finds one, but concludes that there is no influence on Christianity.

I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, so I am currently in the process of obtaining the book (it's not like I can just get it from the local library). When I do, I will post the relevant quotes, but there are two things to take away from this:

1. The nearly universal consensus of scholars in the field of ancient history and mythology is that there were no gods that predate Christ that He could have paralleled (and thus the mytholgy parallels are crap)

2. Even the guy who went against the consensus ultimately concluded that there is no evidence that Christianity was in any way influenced by the one example he did find.

I'll post quotes when I get my hands on the book.

[Destino]

Have the people that believe this movie researched it at all?

This dude made a long post on some forum going over it:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98970

[oriolesfan93p]

Techboy, The problem that both of you have is that you watched the film from a viewpoint of "I believe in God, and Christ, and if this movie wants to tell me otherwise it had better be convincing" where as he is going into reading the bible with the "I don't believe in God or Christ and if the Bible wants me to believe otherwise it had better be convincing". In his case he was looking at the movie looking for what he thought was a plausible alternative to get behind but without ever doing enough research into what he didn't believe in to know that what the film was saying is not plausible. In your case, not only are you a believer but you are knowledgeable in your faith and in history enough to recognize this film for what it was, a piece of garbage intended to drive non believers farther away from the truth.

[Chachie]

Everybody is going to believe what they want to. To staunchly defend Christianity as "the truth" is no more credible than to vehemently claim that Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam are "the truth."

The TRUTH lies somewhere in between. Until the major religions can accept this, they will all be participants in an ongoing, unnecessary war of childish denial that has and will keep the people of this planet from ever achieving any next level of spiritual growth. It's a joke and those that refuse to give an inch are the punch lines. To apply acceptance into "eternal life" to only one strict way of living is ridiculous and implies that your "Supreme Being" is not only short-sighted, but in many cases a racist. Sad.

Where is this "between" that the truth lies within? Look up at the night sky. Its been telling these stories since long before man existed and it's literally the pedestal upon which man first placed his gods.

Also- Stop claiming Jesus is "the only way." It's a mind-freak that keeps you afraid. If OUR God is out there then he/she doesn't give you the christian any more importance than he/she does the Muslim, Jew, or Martian for that matter. It would be like having a favorite child. Do any of you christian soldiers have the conscience to pick one of your kids over another? I thought not.

[Ellis]

Everybody is going to believe what they want to. To staunchly defend Christianity as "the truth" is no more credible than to vehemently claim that Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam are "the truth."

The TRUTH lies somewhere in between. Until the major religions can accept this, they will all be participants in an ongoing, unnecessary war of childish denial that has and will keep the people of this planet from ever achieving any next level of spiritual growth. It's a joke and those that refuse to give an inch are the punch lines. To apply acceptance into "eternal life" to only one strict way of living is ridiculous and implies that your "Supreme Being" is not only short-sighted, but in many cases a racist. Sad.

Where is this "between" that the truth lies within? Look up at the night sky. Its been telling these stories since long before man existed and it's literally the pedestal upon which man first placed his gods.

Also- Stop claiming Jesus is "the only way." It's a mind-freak that keeps you afraid. If OUR God is out there then he/she doesn't give you the christian any more importance than he/she does the Muslim, Jew, or Martian for that matter. It would be like having a favorite child. Do any of you christian soldiers have the conscience to pick one of your kids over another? I thought not.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

well put.

[herb mul-key]

Everybody is going to believe what they want to. To staunchly defend Christianity as "the truth" is no more credible than to vehemently claim that Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam are "the truth."

The TRUTH lies somewhere in between. Until the major religions can accept this, they will all be participants in an ongoing, unnecessary war of childish denial that has and will keep the people of this planet from ever achieving any next level of spiritual growth. It's a joke and those that refuse to give an inch are the punch lines. To apply acceptance into "eternal life" to only one strict way of living is ridiculous and implies that your "Supreme Being" is not only short-sighted, but in many cases a racist. Sad.

Where is this "between" that the truth lies within? Look up at the night sky. Its been telling these stories since long before man existed and it's literally the pedestal upon which man first placed his gods.

Also- Stop claiming Jesus is "the only way." It's a mind-freak that keeps you afraid. If OUR God is out there then he/she doesn't give you the christian any more importance than he/she does the Muslim, Jew, or Martian for that matter. It would be like having a favorite child. Do any of you christian soldiers have the conscience to pick one of your kids over another? I thought not.

that's what I'm talkin about...and techboy please don't bludgeon us with your facts and scholars...

"GUNS, GERMS and STEEL"....read that book and get a fair "scientific" look at human history from 500,000-1 million years ago until now, we modern humans are 50,000 years old -the Jesus story is 2,000 years old...there is so much more to this universe than Jesus and the religion called Christianity....

[Leonard Washington]

the internet is the antichrist

[techboy]

that's what I'm talkin about...and techboy please don't bludgeon us with your facts and scholars...

:laugh:

Well, I have gone to some amount of trouble to get my hands on Dr. Mettinger's book, so when I get it, I'm going to put up the quotes I promised.

Seriously, though, even if you liked the film, why wouldn't you want to know what the facts really are? Why wouldn't you want to know what the experts in the field have to say?

Are people here really taking the position that it sounds convincing, so who cares if it's all factually inaccurate? Is this a "truthiness" thing, where the higher truth of how we feel the universe should be overrides base, vulgar things like "facts" and "experts"?

Really. I'd like to know what's going on here.

I mean, when I sit down to read work by Dr. Ehrman or Dr. Crossan (both of whom reject most or all of the supernatural events recorded in the New Testament) on some aspect of Jesus studies, I know I'm likely going to disagree with most, if not all, of their conclusions. But, because they're qualified, respected experts in their fields, who publish in peer-reviewed journals, I take them seriously. Then, I check what they argue with other qualified, respected experts in the field (like Dr. Craig Evans or Dr. Paul Meier). Generally, I find that after consideration, I reject their conclusions. However, I rarely (if ever), find that their facts are wrong. I generally disagree with what they do with those facts, not the facts themselves.

I can understand how reasonable, well-educated people, can disagree about the Bible or the claims of Christianity.

What I can't understand is why some people seem willing to accept the claims of this film, when it is literally riddled with errors from the minor to the blatant, and it is universally rejected by the scholars whose job it is to know about these things.

Please, enlighten me. Seriously.

[ACW]

Chachie, Judaism IS the truth

[herb mul-key]

Tech- for the record I know this zeitgeist movie is way over the top and no I don't believe it as the total truth either....I was raised episcipol and have never felt a deep faith or belief in the bible or church...though I do believe in the power of the universe and in god just not as it is potrayed in the christian religion...the last few years I have felt more connected to the buddhist philosophy than anything else...

PEACE!

[Koolblue13]

Chachie, Judaism IS the truth

You might be right, but i'de still celebrate it as a Quaker.

[techboy]

Okay, then. I have gone to some trouble to get my hands on T.N.D. Mettinger's book, The Riddle of Ressurection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East, and I'm going to quote it, and since I'm going to the trouble of transcribing it by hand, you lot are going to read it, whether you like it or not. :mad:

Okay... First, Mettinger's assessment of the current state of scholarship, from Chapter 1.2.1: Where Do We Stand? The Task of the Present Work (This quote is from page 40):

As a result of the many decades of research since de Vaux (1933), "it has become commonplace to assume that the category of Mediterranean 'dying and rising' gods has been exploded... (I)t is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or ressurection." These words of J.Z. Smith aptly summarise the present state of research. (56)

Mettinger spends a lot of time in this chapter discussing this: as I noted earlier, the current consensus of scholars is that there are no "dying and rising" gods that predate Christ, and that, in fact, many of the references came after Christ, and are in fact more likely either cases of pagans borrowing from Christians, and not the other way around, or, as in the case of the Church moving Jesus' birthday to Dec. 25, an attempt by early Christians to attract followers of various pagan beliefs.

Now, I want to be totally fair here: although Mettinger shows the current state of scholarship, he then goes on to say that he is one of the few that disagree, and the book is an attempt to make his case that there are in fact a few "dying and rising" gods that pre-date Christianity. He makes a fairly good argument, too, for the gods Melqart, Adonis, Osiris, and Dumuzi. Most scholars disagree with him, but it's a fair argument. Note please, that nowhere in this list is Horus. Zeitgeist can't even get that right!

Before the "Christ mythers" declare victory, though, along with the fact that he is in the extreme minority on this issue, there is also this quote from page 221, in the Epilogue (the bold emphasis is mine, the italics are his):

(1)The figures we have studied are deities. In the case of Jesus, we are confronted with a human (for whom divinity was claimed by himself and by his followers). For the disciples and for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time, historical event that took place at one specific point in the earth's topography. The empty tomb was seen as a historical datum. (4)

(2) The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal cycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of plant life. The death and ressurection of Jesus is a one-time event, not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes.

(3) The death of Jesus is presented in the sources as vicarious suffering, as an act of atonement for sins. The myth of Dumuzi has an arrangement with bilocation and substitution, but there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.

There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.

So, to sum up:

1) The vast majority of scholars reject the idea of pre-Christian "dying and rising gods" at all.

2) Mettinger, who while in the minority, makes a pretty good case that there are a few, also firmly concludes that there is no evidence that the Jewish Jesus was a myth based on other stories. Jesus is unique.

If I might be permitted just one more whack with the bludgeon (), the point about Jesus' essential Judaism is key to the current scholarly rejection of the myth hypothesis. As Dr. William Lane Craig (did I mention yet that I met him this past weekend? ) writes in Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus:

Now from D. F. Strauss through Rudolf Bultmann the role of myth in the shaping of the gospels was a question of lively debate in New Testament scholarship. But with the advent of the so–called "Third Quest" of the historical Jesus and what one author has called "the Jewish reclamation of Jesus,"{1} that is, the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus, scholars have come to appreciate that the proper context for understanding Jesus and the gospels is first–century Palestinian Judaism, not pagan mythology. A most informative article on the demise of myth as a useful interpretive category for the gospels is Craig Evans's "Life–of–Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," in which he chronicles and accounts for the "major shift" away from mythology as a relevant factor in gospel interpretation.{2}

Given that Jesus and the gospels find their natural home in first century, Palestinian Judaism, recourse to pagan mythology to explain them has become otiose. Hence, we find James Dunn, called upon to write the article on "Myth" for the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, questioning even the need for such an entry in the dictionary: "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels…The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars"–Strauss and Bultmann.{3} In lamenting that most commentators have no "knowledge of–or at least, they certainly ignore–the tools that modern anthropology has provided for the analysis of myths and myth construction," Fales tacitly recognizes that his views in gospel interpretation would be rejected by the vast majority of NT critics (and not, therefore, simply by "fundamentalists!"). What he does not appreciate is that the construal of the gospels in terms of myth has been tried and found wanting by NT scholarship.

P.S. I had to look it up. "Otiose" means "useless".

[Zguy28]

Also- Stop claiming Jesus is "the only way."

Hard to do when Jesus said it Himself.

It's a mind-freak that keeps you afraid.

You are the one who sounds afraid.

[Chachie]

Chachie, Judaism IS the truth

Touche.

I read a lot of literature about how they are ALL the truth, AC. Ethically, scientifically, and historically. That's a whole other thread I can't even get into right now. Have at it, fellas. I enjoyed "Zeitgeist" for it's.... geistyness. I've been warned. I gotta go to work tomorrow and figure out what I wanna do this weekend.

[freakofthesouth]

Bump. Can anyone comment on parts two and three??? I can't shake this movie...

[techboy]

Bump. Can anyone comment on parts two and three??? I can't shake this movie...

This discussion on the James Randi forums goes a lot into parts two and three. For those sick of my relentless focus and admitted bias regarding part one (which is just because its what I'm most familiar with), this should be a refreshing discussion, as the focus is squarely on parts two and three, and the James Randi board members, following the views of the founder, are largely Skeptics.

Post 11, for instance, contains links that address the claims made in parts two and three. They are relevant because, as the name implies, Zeitgeist is actually just a compilation of the ideas from other movies in an attempt to tie them all together into one coherent worldview.

Actually, most of parts two and three have been debated here at some time or another (Predicto, for instance, demolishes the idea that the income tax isn't valid here in post #64), so a simple search on the area of interest right here will generate a lot of results.

If there's a particular point you find compelling in part two or three, post it, and I'm sure someone can point you in the right direction.

[TODD]

Hopefully it's better than "Zeitgeist" the album. Corgan needs to hang 'em up.

[thehogs]

Hard to do when Jesus said it Himself.

Did he? I thought someone else wrote that down and is basically claiming Jesus said it....

Fact: Jimmy Cagney never said 'You dirty rat'. Ever. In any film. Ever. Tell that to people and see the reaction you get of 'yes he did!'.

[SkinsTerps26]

talk about the people there saying they heard explosions.

[vegeta613]

talk about the people there saying they heard explosions.

They wont talk about something like this

The Experts said there were no explosions

So who cares what the witnesses that were fighting to get out of the building have to say

They are to dumb to know what they heard

How could explosions be going off anyway?? The official story doesn't mention anything like this

[Predicto]

They wont talk about something like this

The Experts said there were no explosions

So who cares what the witnesses that were fighting to get out of the building have to say

They are to dumb to know what they heard

How could explosions be going off anyway?? The official story doesn't mention anything like this

No, they will say "sure there were explosions. The building was full of transformers and other things that blow up when they are burned, overloaded or compressed."

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

Then the conspiracy theorists will say, in the very next thread: "THEY REFUSE TO ADMIT THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS! RAAAR!!!"

[vegeta613]

No, they will say "sure there were explosions. The building was full of transformers and other things that blow up when they are burned, overloaded or compressed."

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

Then the conspiracy theorists will say, in the very next thread: "THEY REFUSE TO ADMIT THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS! RAAAR!!!"

So if a plane hits the top of the building and explosions are going off at nearly the same time in the basement

It's safe to just say, oh well it was just a transformer?? No need to look here any further?? :doh: