Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Goodness Gracious.


I just watched the dvd, the part about religion and the Bible. It has completely perplexed my thought of the bible.

It basically shows how the Bible is nothing more than a zodialogical text taken from intricate mathematical and astrological Egyptian practice. It pointed to so much hard evidence that it couldn't be refuted.

I now question my faith and belief in God.

wow things like 12 disciples = 12 signs of the zodiac and even more. !2's all over the bible. 12 judges of Israel, 12 princes of Israel, 12 OT Prophets, Temple 12, the 12 tribes. and more. And how the story of being born on Dec. 25 born to a virgin mother, performing miracles and teaching at 30. Crucifixion, buried for 3 days and resurrected can be attributed to dozens and dozens of other figures that lived way before Jesus and how it's all only astrological and that's it..The sun is jesus and the other figures. The sun resurrects and gives life, like why do you think you see a circle on crosses. People have been told it's a Halo to disguise the fact that it's the sun really. wow How on Dec. 22,23,24, the sun stays on the same spot every day and rises up on the 3rd day for the spring equinox, giving life. How the ten commandment were taken outright from spell 125 in the Egyptian book of the dead.

And there's more too....Ive never seen anything like it. I held my mouth agape for 2 minutes after watching the thing. That religion has been used to instill fear and money extraction only from the dumbfounded masses. And there really is no jesus and god.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kla-BcN8u8Q&feature=related

this dvd also talks about the federal reserve and men of power. I'm still watching it now.

Zeitgeist is a very good film. I am glad it has opened your eyes FotN, however there are some members here who will not accept it.

conspiracy forum

Originally posted by inimalist
conspiracy forum He's talking about the religious side to it.

ill put it there too.

Yeah, unfortunately it likes to overstep its bounds with a lot of the conspiracy stuff. There's better commentaries on the fallibility of the Bible than that particular movie, but if it moves people to challenge their beliefs then I suppose it does more good than harm.

Zeitgeist is a joke.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Zeitgeist is a joke. You're a joke.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You're a joke.

Naw, jokes are funny.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You're a joke.
And you're the punchline.

Care to add anything to the discussion?

its not a joke. it does have a few inacurracies but its message is fantastic.

basically it is saying 'we are all one, and we shouldnt be divided by religions designed to enslave us and divide us'

there is a god, and its us and everything. nuff said.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4nMBCeSHs24
watch this and tell me why u think this message is a joke

Because it's retarded. I'm not going to argue with you because you have proven yourself to be inept at logical debate in the past.

maybe it is just you who retarded. if you cant understand the message portrayed than thats your problem. go cry somewhere else.

i dont want to argue with you btw

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because it's retarded. I'm not going to argue with you because you have proven yourself to be inept at logical debate in the past.

In the past...we have all proven ourselves inept. Including you.

It's message of "think for yourself" is decent enough.

Too bad the film strays into the realm of concluding that having any kind of entertainment is bad, and that we should all sit and ponder things untill we all agree that the government is out to get us.

Message is decent though. Music in the beginning was kinda cool.

i dont think it is saying that entertainment is bad. i think it is making the point that there is way too much of it, and the dangers of this are all but evident in todays society

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Goodness Gracious.


I just watched the dvd, the part about religion and the Bible. It has completely perplexed my thought of the bible.

It basically shows how the Bible is nothing more than a zodialogical text taken from intricate mathematical and astrological Egyptian practice. It pointed to so much hard evidence that it couldn't be refuted.

I now question my faith and belief in God.

wow things like 12 disciples = 12 signs of the zodiac and even more. !2's all over the bible. 12 judges of Israel, 12 princes of Israel, 12 OT Prophets, Temple 12, the 12 tribes. and more. And how the story of being born on Dec. 25 born to a virgin mother, performing miracles and teaching at 30. Crucifixion, buried for 3 days and resurrected can be attributed to dozens and dozens of other figures that lived way before Jesus and how it's all only astrological and that's it..The sun is jesus and the other figures. The sun resurrects and gives life, like why do you think you see a circle on crosses. People have been told it's a Halo to disguise the fact that it's the sun really. wow How on Dec. 22,23,24, the sun stays on the same spot every day and rises up on the 3rd day for the spring equinox, giving life. How the ten commandment were taken outright from spell 125 in the Egyptian book of the dead.

And there's more too....Ive never seen anything like it. I held my mouth agape for 2 minutes after watching the thing. That religion has been used to instill fear and money extraction only from the dumbfounded masses. And there really is no jesus and god.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kla-BcN8u8Q&feature=related

this dvd also talks about the federal reserve and men of power. I'm still watching it now. the fact that it took a video to do that is actually quite sad.

EDIT: watching the ending it just seems to be a conspiracy vid. im actually getting sick of all the yahoos who think they know everything. but seriously if you need a film to open your eyes, rather than experiences, i pity you.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
the fact that it took a video to do that is actually quite sad.

God isn't letting my computer open that video right now, or I'd comment

Originally posted by Quark_666
God isn't letting my computer open that video right now, or I'd comment ya know i find it hilarious that someone telling you to think for yourself is literally telling u what to do.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ya know i find it hilarious that someone telling you to think for yourself is literally telling u what to do.

most people who say think for yourself are

its like "open your mind"

i dont understand what the big deal is. all of this has been said before many times. people just dont read books. now thats a ****ing issue.

great film by the way. nothing new was said though.

lol

the more something is repeated, the more likely it is to be true

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

the more something is repeated, the more likely it is to be true cant disagree with that, but Zeitgeist isn't a factual documentary. it's to make you think.

there is no God? still has to be proven/disproven. however you look at it.

i for one believe in a higher being. dont care much for religion.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
the fact that it took a video to do that is actually quite sad.

EDIT: watching the ending it just seems to be a conspiracy vid. im actually getting sick of all the yahoos who think they know everything. but seriously if you need a film to open your eyes, rather than experiences, i pity you.

I merely said that the film made me question my faith and belief in God. Not that it made me absolutely changed my mind. It just (violently) shook my belief system into wondering if it's all true or not.

Believe me my eyes have been open, maybe i just refused to see cause i didn't wanna think that God wasn't real. Or maybe not. Maybe it's something else, i dunno. I've seen all the signs in my life; things that've made me wonder if there's a God but the Zeitgeist film put things into concrete perspective the likes which ive never seen. But the bible does that too. But the film gave me some answers to questions i'v always had about God the Bible that i wanted deeply wanted answered.

I will admit; I'm now conflicted and torn more than i've ever been about this issue. And i'm one to take in anything at face value unless it's profoundly substantial.

I still believe; i grew up as a catholic with a firm belief in God but,...one can't argue with fact and evidence either.

Wow. What now..?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And you're the punchline.

Care to add anything to the discussion? Isn't a punchline essentially, the joke? If I was the punchline, that would make me you, or at least, a big part of you. Now, I don't know everything, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a big part of you.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

the more something is repeated, the more likely it is to be true
Repeat the lie until it is true.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't a punchline essentially, the joke? If I was the punchline, that would make me you, or at least, a big part of you. Now, I don't know everything, but I'm pretty sure I'm not a big part of you.
I suppose you're right. But you're still a retard.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Repeat the lie until it is true.

I suppose you're right. But you're still a retard. What do you base that on?

Your posting habits.

Don't try to have a legitimate discussion after calling me a joke.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I merely said that the film made me question my faith and belief in God. Not that it made me absolutely changed my mind. It just (violently) shook my belief system into wondering if it's all true or not.

Believe me my eyes have been open, maybe i just refused to see cause i didn't wanna think that God wasn't real. Or maybe not. Maybe it's something else, i dunno. I've seen all the signs in my life; things that've made me wonder if there's a God but the Zeitgeist film put things into concrete perspective the likes which ive never seen. But the bible does that too. But the film gave me some answers to questions i'v always had about God the Bible that i wanted deeply wanted answered.

I will admit; I'm now conflicted and torn more than i've ever been about this issue. And i'm one to take in anything at face value unless it's profoundly substantial.

I still believe; i grew up as a catholic with a firm belief in God but,...one can't argue with fact and evidence either.

Wow. What now..? the only reason that your still hanging onto your belief is(likely?) because you grew up like that. its always hard to throw away something you've believed in for a long time, but believe me your better off without religion

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Goodness Gracious.


I just watched the dvd, the part about religion and the Bible. It has completely perplexed my thought of the bible.

It basically shows how the Bible is nothing more than a zodialogical text taken from intricate mathematical and astrological Egyptian practice. It pointed to so much hard evidence that it couldn't be refuted.

I now question my faith and belief in God.

wow things like 12 disciples = 12 signs of the zodiac and even more. !2's all over the bible. 12 judges of Israel, 12 princes of Israel, 12 OT Prophets, Temple 12, the 12 tribes. and more. And how the story of being born on Dec. 25 born to a virgin mother, performing miracles and teaching at 30. Crucifixion, buried for 3 days and resurrected can be attributed to dozens and dozens of other figures that lived way before Jesus and how it's all only astrological and that's it..The sun is jesus and the other figures. The sun resurrects and gives life, like why do you think you see a circle on crosses. People have been told it's a Halo to disguise the fact that it's the sun really. wow How on Dec. 22,23,24, the sun stays on the same spot every day and rises up on the 3rd day for the spring equinox, giving life. How the ten commandment were taken outright from spell 125 in the Egyptian book of the dead.

And there's more too....Ive never seen anything like it. I held my mouth agape for 2 minutes after watching the thing. That religion has been used to instill fear and money extraction only from the dumbfounded masses. And there really is no jesus and god.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kla-BcN8u8Q&feature=related

this dvd also talks about the federal reserve and men of power. I'm still watching it now.

I can't really address the zodiac aspect of your claim, or the one made by the film, but there's no question that the bible (like the vast majority of religious texts and ideologies) are a tool used by those in power to perpetuate a civilization's dependance on the religious and political power of those who rule. The bible, and the Torah before it, are an instrument of subjugation.

If the Bible were an instrument of subjugation, you'd think that they would have, you know, altered the message of the freedom of Christ.

its there to control the peoples of the earth. without control chaos would ensue.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If the Bible were an instrument of subjugation, you'd think that they would have, you know, altered the message of the freedom of Christ.

I have seen little "freedom" in Christ.

Originally posted by Devil King
I have seen little "freedom" in Christ.
*Shrugs.*

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If the Bible were an instrument of subjugation, you'd think that they would have, you know, altered the message of the freedom of Christ.

And how would you know if what you believe was what it was altered too?

Um...because altering it would lessen control?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Um...because altering it would lessen control?

Not unless control was the reason it was altered.

Please explain what you're getting at. I don't feel like playing "dance around the point" tonight.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Please explain what you're getting at. I don't feel like playing "dance around the point" tonight.

What? I was being very clear.

You only know what your religion wants you to know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? I was being very clear.

You only know what your religion wants you to know. How?

His religion doesn't stop him from considering outside sources.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize my religion was some kind of entity that was actively trying to deceive me.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm sorry, I didn't realize my religion was some kind of entity that was actively trying to deceive me.

Well, now you have learned something.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm sorry, I didn't realize my religion was some kind of entity that was actively trying to deceive me.

Listen Zeal Ex Negro, religion may be a deception, or a silk veil covering your eyes, it may not be. Thing is, do you have evidence that your religion hasn't deceived you?

If you don't, and if you're smart, then you should realize that there may be the possibility or a chance of deception.

You're asking him to prove a negative; you seem to do this often.

Do you have evidence that a stupid movie put out on the internet is not a load of crap?

can you even prove a negative like that?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Listen Zeal Ex Negro, religion may be a deception, or a silk veil covering your eyes, it may not be. Thing is, do you have evidence that your religion hasn't deceived you?

If you don't, and if you're smart, then you should realize that there may be the possibility or a chance of deception.
LOL.

Evidence that it hasn't deceived me? I have absolutely no idea how I could prove such a thing.

Good one.

Guess that makes you a complete idiot then. Because these guys DO know how to prove or disprove it.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
LOL.

Evidence that it hasn't deceived me? I have absolutely no idea how I could prove such a thing.

Then they have done a good job.

The Jesus myth hypothesis is an interesting theory. It's nothing new though.

Originally posted by Mark Question
The Jesus myth hypothesis is an interesting theory. It's nothing new though. exactly! as i said, none of this is new information.

it's a great documentary but it hasn't proven anything. people are making into something revolutionary.

Good for the ratings.

The so called Zodiac Hypothesis is hardly compelling when one considers its abuse of biblical context. A text without a context is nothing but a pretext, and those who attempt to superimpose a foreign paradigm on the Bible (or any other work of literature) are violating the basic rules of logic. In my view, the video is nothing more than feebleminded fiction.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The so called Zodiac Hypothesis is hardly compelling when one considers its abuse of biblical context. A text without a context is nothing but a pretext, and those who attempt to superimpose a foreign paradigm on the Bible (or any other work of literature) are violating the basic rules of logic. In my view, the video is nothing more than feebleminded fiction.

How do you determine biblical context?

By the front and back cover?

Originally posted by queeq
By the front and back cover?

???

Determining the context of a Bible passage is accomplished the same way one determines the context of any writing. Taking in to consideration the type of literature one is dealing with -- narrative, law, poetry, history, prophesy, etc -- one permits the text to speak for itself. More often than not, we can discern the intended meaning of an author from the content of his writing.

A number of years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a debate between a noted atheist and a Christian theologian. The atheist was well versed in Scripture and decided to open his comments with a quote from the Bible.

"There is no God!" he cited from Psalm 14:1.

At face value, such a verse might lead someone to believe the Bible supports atheism. But of course, this is entirely untrue. How can we know for certain what this seemingly brash statement from Psalm 14:1 is really communicating? Simple. We examine the words that surround the quote. Here's how the whole verse reads:

"Only fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God!' They are corrupt and their actions are evil. No one does good!"

The sad truth is, people can make the Bible say anything they please if they ignore context. When you and I present our thoughts in this forum, we have the right to expect that others will not misquote us, no matter how strongly they disagree with our opinions. Likewise, the various human authors of the Bible had a specific purpose in mind when they wrote the Scriptures under God's direction . As readers of the Bible, it is our ethical duty to discover the author's intended meaning. We must never presume to superimpose our own.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Determining the context of a Bible passage is accomplished the same way one determines the context of any writing. Taking in to consideration the type of literature one is dealing with -- narrative, law, poetry, history, prophesy, etc -- one permits the text to speak for itself. More often than not, we can discern the intended meaning of an author from the content of his writing.

A number of years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a debate between a noted atheist and a Christian theologian. The atheist was well versed in Scripture and decided to open his comments with a quote from the Bible.

"There is no God!" he cited from Psalm 14:1.

At face value, such a verse might lead someone to believe the Bible supports atheism. But of course, this is entirely untrue. How can we know for certain what this seemingly brash statement from Psalm 14:1 is really communicating? Simple. We examine the words that surround the quote. Here's how the whole verse reads:

"Only fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God!' They are corrupt and their actions are evil. No one does good!"

The sad truth is, people can make the Bible say anything they please if they ignore context. When you and I present our thoughts in this forum, we have the right to expect that others will not misquote us, no matter how strongly they disagree with our opinions. Likewise, the various human authors of the Bible had a specific purpose in mind when they wrote the Scriptures under God's direction . As readers of the Bible, it is our ethical duty to discover the author's intended meaning. We must never presume to superimpose our own.

Then how does the Zodiac Hypothesis abuse biblical context?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Determining the context of a Bible passage is accomplished the same way one determines the context of any writing. Taking in to consideration the type of literature one is dealing with -- narrative, law, poetry, history, prophesy, etc -- one permits the text to speak for itself. More often than not, we can discern the intended meaning of an author from the content of his writing.

A number of years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a debate between a noted atheist and a Christian theologian. The atheist was well versed in Scripture and decided to open his comments with a quote from the Bible.

"There is no God!" he cited from Psalm 14:1.

At face value, such a verse might lead someone to believe the Bible supports atheism. But of course, this is entirely untrue. How can we know for certain what this seemingly brash statement from Psalm 14:1 is really communicating? Simple. We examine the words that surround the quote. Here's how the whole verse reads:

"Only fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God!' They are corrupt and their actions are evil. No one does good!"

The sad truth is, people can make the Bible say anything they please if they ignore context. When you and I present our thoughts in this forum, we have the right to expect that others will not misquote us, no matter how strongly they disagree with our opinions. Likewise, the various human authors of the Bible had a specific purpose in mind when they wrote the Scriptures under God's direction . As readers of the Bible, it is our ethical duty to discover the author's intended meaning. We must never presume to superimpose our own.

So then you don't take it literally?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Determining the context of a Bible passage is accomplished the same way one determines the context of any writing. Taking in to consideration the type of literature one is dealing with -- narrative, law, poetry, history, prophesy, etc -- one permits the text to speak for itself. More often than not, we can discern the intended meaning of an author from the content of his writing.

A number of years ago, I had the opportunity to attend a debate between a noted atheist and a Christian theologian. The atheist was well versed in Scripture and decided to open his comments with a quote from the Bible.

"There is no God!" he cited from Psalm 14:1.

At face value, such a verse might lead someone to believe the Bible supports atheism. But of course, this is entirely untrue. How can we know for certain what this seemingly brash statement from Psalm 14:1 is really communicating? Simple. We examine the words that surround the quote. Here's how the whole verse reads:

"Only fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God!' They are corrupt and their actions are evil. No one does good!"

The sad truth is, people can make the Bible say anything they please if they ignore context. When you and I present our thoughts in this forum, we have the right to expect that others will not misquote us, no matter how strongly they disagree with our opinions. Likewise, the various human authors of the Bible had a specific purpose in mind when they wrote the Scriptures under God's direction . As readers of the Bible, it is our ethical duty to discover the author's intended meaning. We must never presume to superimpose our own. thats funny cause the last time i checked, every person superimposed their own interpretation of the bible. many people take many different things out of the same text.humans arent objective, regardless of how we strive to be. dont delude yourself

The Zodiac Hypothesis attributes meanings to biblical texts that were not conceived by the original authors. Or to say that differently...one could never logically draw the conclusions proposed by Zodiac theorists, if one's study was limited to the pages of the Bible. In order to support ZH it is necessary to introduce a huge amount of extracanonical data. If the writers of the Bible intended us to think "ZODIAC" when they wrote the Scriptures, they would have said as much. As it is, they claim entirely different reasons for writing.

Take a look at the Gospel of Luke for example:

"Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts of the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of His promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught."

Notice that the Gospel of Luke is a letter written to one person, based on real history, confirmed by eyewitness testimony, and intended to encourage Theophilus in his new faith -- the Christian faith. It is NOT a metaphor for various astrological phenomena.

Or take John's Gospel:

"Jesus' disciples saw Him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him you will have life."

The authors of the Bible generally make their purpose in writing VERY clear. To import a foreign hermeneutic like the ZH, is to perpetuate a lie.

And as for the claim that the Bible can mean anything you please because plenty of people treat it that way -- all I can say is, you've gotta be kidding! Whether you believe the Bible is the product of divine inspiration or human imagination, it contains a well framed message that deserves at least the same respect we would show to any other ancient work of literature. To misquote and misrepresent the words of others, even if they lived and died thousands of years ago, is to commit a gross ethical trespass.

Tim Rout, who are you talking too?

I would suggest using quotes to show which post / or posts you are replying too.

If you don't know how to quote, pm me and I will help you. If you don't know how to pm, then go here. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f13/

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Zodiac Hypothesis attributes meanings to biblical texts that were not conceived by the original authors. Or to say that differently...one could never logically draw the conclusions proposed by Zodiac theorists, if one's study was limited to the pages of the Bible. In order to support ZH it is necessary to introduce a huge amount of extracanonical data. If the writers of the Bible intended us to think "ZODIAC" when they wrote the Scriptures, they would have said as much. As it is, they claim entirely different reasons for writing.

Take a look at the Gospel of Luke for example:

"Most honorable Theophilus: Many people have written accounts of the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of His promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught."

Notice that the Gospel of Luke is a letter written to one person, based on real history, confirmed by eyewitness testimony, and intended to encourage Theophilus in his new faith -- the Christian faith. It is NOT a metaphor for various astrological phenomena.

Or take John's Gospel:

"Jesus' disciples saw Him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him you will have life."

The authors of the Bible generally make their purpose in writing VERY clear. To import a foreign hermeneutic like the ZH, is to perpetuate a lie.

And as for the claim that the Bible can mean anything you please because plenty of people treat it that way -- all I can say is, you've gotta be kidding! Whether you believe the Bible is the product of divine inspiration or human imagination, it contains a well framed message that deserves at least the same respect we would show to any other ancient work of literature. To misquote and misrepresent the words of others, even if they lived and died thousands of years ago, is to commit a gross ethical trespass. ethics dont exist anymore. the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ethics dont exist anymore. the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea

That is not always true. What you are considering "the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea" is really the result of pluralism. Ethics are cultural based and change from culture to culture. As the world is getting smaller because of global communication the cultural ethics begin to collide and change.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ethics dont exist anymore. the lines between right and wrong are so blurred these days you have no idea

An interesting assertion. If by your statement you mean ethical behavior is becoming increasingly rare, I suppose one could make an evidential case for such a claim. But if you are suggesting that in our day and age ethical conduct has become irrelevant, I would challenge you to prove it.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
An interesting assertion. If by your statement you mean ethical behavior is becoming increasingly rare, I suppose one could make an evidential case for such a claim. But if you are suggesting that in our day and age ethical conduct has become irrelevant, I would challenge you to prove it. ya know i might enjoy you posting here.

that said i think its a little of both. it is becoming very rare to see someone with and ethics and i am personally surprised when in school when i ask someone if i can see their homework and they go " but thats cheating! it has become slightly irrelevant because to advance in todays world ethics are not required and sometimes it is encouraged not to have any.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not always true.

That's not ever true. There are some very clearly wrong things in the world. It's when people consider the lines blurred on issues that were never wrong or harmful that lead people to believe that morals or right and wrong are in question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Tim Rout, who are you talking too?

I would suggest using quotes to show which post / or posts you are replying too.

If you don't know how to quote, pm me and I will help you. If you don't know how to pm, then go here. http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f13/
Marchello doesn't use quote functions.

Its all invented though...the Guardian did not give it a very positive review.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Marchello doesn't use quote functions.

But Tim Rout did learn how to quote.

The first part is fairly accurate, but when he begins talking about stars, there is something I would like to call into question. He claims that they "catalogued celestial groups", while this is true for some civilizations, others such as the Inca, actually categorized the dark spots, not the stars themselves.



The above statement implies that constellations and the zodiac have always been connected -- and that there have been just twelve. While the zodiac's exact origins are unknown, the oldest known zodiacs do not have exactly 12 signs and thus conclusions drawn to this cannot be trusted. For example, the Babylonian zodiac originally consisted of 18 signs and the Mayan Zodiac consisted of twenty . While the Egyptian and Greek zodiacs do contain 12 signs, I thought it important to mention that the 12 signs are not some undeniable truth that can easily be recognized by all civilizations. In fact there are actually 13 constellations the sun passes through, the missing one is Ophiuchus, which is not counted by modern astrologers, for some reason



The sun was not the creator god in all cultures, but rather only a few. While the sun was widely worshipped, but more often than not, most religions believed the earth was given birth to (along side the sun and moon) by a different God, or in some cases the earth is the back of a giant turtle. This is hardly something that can be seen through most religions, and is a bit of a stretch. The whole purpose of saying "God's Sun, the light of the world, the savior of human kind", is to later setup for a comparison for Jesus, and as I will explain later on in this article, is completely inaccurate. And something else further makes little sense here, if the Sun itself is God and the creator, why would they refer to it as "God's Sun", implying that the sun is not the God? Also as I mention at the bottom of this article, there was a a segment cut out that said "God's Sun = God's Son", and this is also inaccurate, because they are similar only in English -- and the bible was not written in English. I feel like this part is still a setup because it is still implying that God's Sun is the same as God's Son, even though the connection is impossible.



At this time, he was the god of the sky, and Ra was the god of the sun. Perhaps inevitable, since he was the sky, eventually the moon and the sun were considered his eyes. At this point he was known as Heru-khuti, and by-and-by he was combined with Ra as the god "Re-Horakhty". While there was a battle between Set and Horus, it was hardly every night. In fact, the battle really only happened once, and had more to do with testicles and seamen than night and day (seriously).

In fact day and night in Egyptian Mythology was much more complicated than the film suggests. The goddess of the sky was called Nut (or Nuit), her name also means "night". At dusk she would swallow Ra, the son god, and he would stay in her uterus until morning when he would be reborn. She wore a blue dress that was covered in stars . Set was the God of the desert, primarily because Horus cut off one of his testicles and he became "infertile like the desert". At this time, Set was not considered evil, it was not until around 100 A.D. that the Romans in Egypt turned Set into a demonic figure



Horus was not born on December 25th, he was born on the 5th day of the "Epagomenal Days", which does not even take place in December on the modern or ancient calendars, but rather between August 24th and 28th, but in terms of the rising of Sirius (August 4), they are July 30th through August 3rd. His mother was also not a virgin. Horus's father was Osiris, who was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus.

I, as well as several others, as well as several Egyptologists you can find on the Internet, know of no reference anywhere to a "star in the east" or "three kings" and "new-born savior"; it is simply made up. I cannot find any source or information proving he was a "teacher when he was 12 years old", that he was baptized at age 30, that he walked on water (but on the Internet, I did find several places that suggest he was "thrown in the water", but I have no direct source at this time for that). More so, I cannot find any evidence he was referred to as "The Truth", "The Light", Lamb of God", "the Good Shepherd", etc.

Also lacking is any evidence that he was betrayed by Typhon. In fact, Horus never died, at any time, he later merges with the sun god, Ra -- but never dies and certainly never is crucified, and therefore could not have been buried for 3 days and resurrected. If you want to look it up yourself, you can find documentation of Horus and Isis and Osiris here and here . All of these things can be found in the book discussed below, but nowhere outside the book (that doesn't quote said book itself).

Zeitgeist, the movie did not make this up originally, you can find several places on the Internet that make such claims, but there are no sources or suggestions as to where this information came from. It is highly possible all this originates from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold - If you read the Amazon reviews, you can find that a lot of people who point out how the information is completely unsourced . I went to Barnes and Nobel and actually found this book in the Christianity section and I sat down with my wife and read through it while she had some coffee. Needless to say it was completely unsourced and was like reading much the other "Christianity Conspiracy" books out there. So, if these claims all originate from this book, there's absolutely no evidence for it . I should note that this book is used as a "source" in Zeitgeist, the movie . And it is worth pointing out the title is only one word away from the title of this part of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" vs "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

Horus did not have 12 disciples, rather he had four semi-divine disciples called "heru-shemsu" (followers of Horus) . He did have 16 human followers . One can also find reference to an unnumbered group of followers called the Mesniu (blacksmiths) who accompanied Horus into some of his battles, but no where can 12 of anything be found .

Well, as read above, these attributes really are not original. It seems kind of obvious to say that such myths would permeate many cultures of the world -- generally because the claims made by the film, such as a sun god, good and evil, and so forth are things most cultures have believed in.

The film goes on to describe other Gods and Goddesses with similar backgrounds. We will talk about these one at a time.



This explanation is not only over simplified, but inaccurate. Attis was not necessarily born of a virgin (because it does not say whether or not his mother is a virgin), in fact Attis was born of Nana after she ate the fruit of an almond tree which had been grown from the blood of either Agdistis or Cybele. Attis was worshipped as the God of vegetation, responsible for death and rebirth of plant life. It was thought that each winter he died and in the spring he was reborn. Each spring his resurrection would be celebrated. It goes without saying that spring does not take place in December, nor is the change of seasons crucifixion, there is no mention of any tombs anywhere, and seeing how he is dead all winter, it goes without saying that winter is longer than 3 days

And it goes on...

The rest of the article challenging word by word of the film can be found here http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

It goes on to discuss the 9/11 and Federal Reserve stuff...good work from some bloke who just doesn't care much for conspiracy theories.