The First Third of the Movie Zeitgeist

[Loffler]

When I first watched the online movie Zeitgeist (watch it here) I became very excited. The documentary is divided into 3 parts, the first of which is about Christianity's place in religion's mythological and astrological heritage. Every sentence if a firebomb: Egyptian religion as the model for Judeo-Christianity, Joseph from the OT as a proto-Jesus, the life of Jesus as a constellation allegory, the myths of Judaism and Christianity as references to 2000-year astrological ages. It was, to say the least, invigorating.

Then came the second half. And the third. They are about, respectively, the government perpetrating 9/11 and elite bankers secretly running the world.

These were so full of holes, stretched conclusions, and sloppy, dishonest editing and presentation that I began, retrospectively, to question the first third. I have more experience with political argumentation than with religious argumentation, so I suspected immediately naivete on my part.

Google searches on the information from the first third have produced mixed results: historians consider Jesus an historical figure, some of the source material of the film is questionable (especially consider the lack of citations, so the source material must be guessed), and while some of it is obviously true, much more could just be interpretation, overextrapolation from coincidence, or outright falsehood.

So let's do this: will any interested parties please watch the first third of the movie and, if so inspired, see if you have more luck verifying or refuting the information? Or just toss some tidbits or just observations into the melting pot of this thread and maybe together we can figure something out.

[Will]

Atheist historians are at a standstill on whether or not there actually was a Jesus, upon which the mythology was based. Theist historians (or "biased" historians) claim that there was plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, despite the fact that virtually all of the evidence is biblical.

By my understanding (and I'm only what one might call an amateur historian), the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus is flimsy at best and outright fabrication from my conclusions. There are no written accounts of Jesus from when he was alive. There were other self-proclaimed messiahs (like Apollonius of Tyana) who lived around the same time for which there is evidence who happen to share basically all of Jesus' traits. Apollonius, to continue to use as an example, was conceived of a virgin, healed the sick, brought people back to life, walked through walls, was persecuted and crucified for his beliefs, and was said to have resurrected and ascended into heaven. And even the evidence for Apollonius is rather flimsy outside of Philostratus.

To put it frankly, I doubt that there's any reason to believe that the Jesus of the Christian Bible (Yeshua Ben Yosef) existed.

I've seen Zeitgiest. It doesn't live up to it's name and should be replaced with a better movie via natural selection.  

[Loffler]

By my understanding (and I'm only what one might call an amateur historian), the extra-biblical evidence for Jesus is flimsy at best and outright fabrication from my conclusions. There are no written accounts of Jesus from when he was alive. There were other self-proclaimed messiahs (like Apollonius of Tyana) who lived around the same time for which there is evidence who happen to share basically all of Jesus' traits. Apollonius, to continue to use as an example, was conceived of a virgin, healed the sick, brought people back to life, walked through walls, was persecuted and crucified for his beliefs, and was said to have resurrected and ascended into heaven. And even the evidence for Apollonius is rather flimsy outside of Philostratus.

To put it frankly, I doubt that there's any reason to believe that the Jesus of the Christian Bible (Yeshua Ben Yosef) existed.

What do you think about the alleged astrological sources of the Jesus story's elements? The cross, the star in the east, the three kings, the 12 apostles, the death and resurrection?

I've seen Zeitgiest. It doesn't live up to it's name and should be replaced with a better movie via natural selection.  

I was tremendously disappointed, but probably doubly so because I wanted the first part to be verifiable, and the other parts tainted it.

[Will]

What do you think about the alleged astrological sources of the Jesus story's elements? The cross, the star in the east, the three kings, the 12 apostles, the death and resurrection?

Jesus is an amalgam of previous mythology, sure.

I was tremendously disappointed, but probably doubly so because I wanted the first part to be verifiable, and the other parts tainted it.

There are better sources of information about the actual historical context of Christianity than Zeitgeist.

Still, I've spoken to a lot of people who simply dismiss the second and third parts of Zeitgeist outright. As a man of science, I can appreciate that there are unanswered questions about 9/11 that should be explored. It's not likely a massive conspiracy, of course, but that hardly means that the whole thing is wrong.

[afreethinker30]

I really enjoyed all parts of the movie although I know alot is lacking.I do believe in some way Bush was involved in 911 but more like he had information and didn't act.You can't look at the things that happened after 911 and Bush and his actions without thinking it's all to well fit.Look at all of the people making profit off of the "war" and how hard Bush tried to cover up there were no nuclear weapons.Look at how many times he has lied.Invading Iraq because God told him to.Things change all the time usually for the better,yet American government is just as it was 200 years ago.We need to get rid of all of them get a counsel of 10 to 20 people instead of having a higher man.

[Asmodean]

Zeitgeist falls just a bit short of a paranoiacs dream in my book. Well, the two last parts of it, anyways.

...And Asmodean is a paranioac  

[afreethinker30]

Even though it is lacking I just think the whole point of the movie is to get you thinking for yourself.

Think for yourself
Question authority

[Loffler]

Even though it is lacking I just think the whole point of the movie is to get you thinking for yourself.

It's certainly encourages one to think for themselves, though probably not in the way you mean.

I good critical thinker will get no shortage of material to rip apart from Zeitgeist, especially if said thinker searches the internet for more information on the subjects.

The lack of credible sources backing the first section (the section I really, really wanted to be true) really raised my hackles.

I haven't searched for information on the second and third section since the stories don't even stand up to scrutiny on their own.

[afreethinker30]

Even though it is lacking I just think the whole point of the movie is to get you thinking for yourself.

It's certainly encourages one to think for themselves, though probably not in the way you mean.

I good critical thinker will get no shortage of material to rip apart from Zeitgeist, especially if said thinker searches the internet for more information on the subjects.

The lack of credible sources backing the first section (the section I really, really wanted to be true) really raised my hackles.

I haven't searched for information on the second and third section since the stories don't even stand up to scrutiny on their own.

Have you noticed that when you read alot of the reviews most people only get pissy about the God/Jesus parts?Being critical can be a good thing.

[Will]

The lack of credible sources backing the first section (the section I really, really wanted to be true) really raised my hackles.

Isn't hackle raising still illegal in some states?

[Loffler]

Have you noticed that when you read alot of the reviews most people only get pissy about the God/Jesus parts?Being critical can be a good thing.

Yes, and I suspect it's due in large part to the overlap between conspiracy theorists and Christians.

I've known many people into the Illuminati, the Masons, the Trilateral Commission, the Carlyle Group, the Bilderbergs, the New World Order, and the Gnomes of Zurich (global bankers). 90% of them tie their beliefs into Christianity, or rather I should say 90% of them buy into the explanations which incorporate Christianity. This is because it's easy to do so: the Enlightenment secret societies which gave rise to these theories (which actually accomplished the task they set out to accomplish: expanding Enlightenment ideals) often incorporated pagan imagery which was later conflated with Satanic imagery. I speak primarily of the pentagram, but also of Isis and the eye of Horus. These types see the secret global government as the forces of evil and even Satanism, even going so far as to believe the leaders of the world are secret members of devil worshipping sects.

Flash forward to Zeitgeist. The very passionate and very vocal body of "conspiracy factualists" happen upon a movie which supports 2 of their beliefs... and completely obliterates, even more deftly, their most fundamental belief. I can imagine this could be quite jarring. Ever more frustrating must be the realization, after dedicating hours to dismantling the Jesus myth section of the movie, that they've inadvertently developed the critical thinking tools and habits which enable them to then dismantle the rest of the movie, too.

[Loffler]

The lack of credible sources backing the first section (the section I really, really wanted to be true) really raised my hackles.

Isn't hackle raising still illegal in some states?

I believe you're thinking of consciousness-raising.

[afreethinker30]

Well I could understand how religion could be used to keep people in line.Our American president said that God told him to invade Iraq.I'm sure that shut some people up atleast for awhile.And look at how many want to defend Israel.Hillary Clinton was talking about starting a nuclear war over the damned place.I'm so glad she is out of the race.
[youtube:3ixn7pus]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUiFcaWxn8o[/youtube:3ixn7pus]