Zeitgeist, The movie

[Stuart]

Hi everyone

I am not sure if this is old news but i watched a film called Zeitgeist tonight and found it easily the best and most complete film i have seen yet in linking the topics we discuss here.

Its coverage of 9/11 is also superb and well summed up and if showed it to any new comer it would have alot of impact.

It starts with 35 mins exposing the religions and where they all descend from, i believe many would find this very enlightening and i have never seen it put so susinctly. It then moves swiftly onto 9/11 and then onto the international banking fraud and the media and then a summary of other false flag attacks and then an insight into where it all ends.

Sounds like the usual stuff i know but trust me you will love it and will find it riverting from beginning to end.

Be great to put a link to it on the front page!!

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Let me know what you make of it

[Light Infantree]

Hi daretocare,

I first saw this movie about a month ago and was, like you, blown away by it. It is very cleverly put together and IMO will crack a few more eggshells about the place.

I'd like to see this one on the sites main page too.

[Cruise4]

Came across a reference to this post on the http://www.nineeleven.co.uk site and thought it worth posting here. I haven't checked any of the info but always worth seeing other opinion, and it helps the Christians stay with the program maybe:

Originally Posted by OperaPhantom91
I hate to ruin the fun for you all, but the guy has most of his facts wrong.

Zeitgeist is based off of the historical works of Acharya S – pen name for D. Murdock. When I read her works she used vulgar language and wrote in such a way that many historians have ostracized her. Many Christians have pointed out the fallacies of her work.

This movie is largely based upon her book “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told” and “Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha, and Christ Unveiled”. Her work is often criticized as ‘twisting the truth’, ‘misleading’, ‘made-up’, ‘over-exaggerated’, ‘bias…without contempt for historical accuracy’, ‘a spit in the face to modern history’ and so on. (I will try to find those articles for you guys.)

To start with, I will point out the fallacies in the movie:
Horus was the SKY GOD in Egyptian mythology, NOT the SUN GOD. Ra was the sun god. Horus means "Falcon". Eventually, yes, Horus did become associated with the Sun through his eyes. One eye was the sun, the other the moon - so he was not conquered by Set at night.
None of those were born of a virgin birth:
Horus was the son of Osiris (a male god of the underworld) and Isis (a female god). As time progresses we see that the Hellenic Greeks got Horus confused with Osiris, which would make Horus his own father... still not a virgin birth, as there was a father - himself, according to Greeks.
Attis was the son of Cybele... well he sort of had a virgin birth - His mother was impregnated by a tree that was inseminated by a creature called Agdistis who was the son of the mountain which was inseminated by Zeus. Kinda not really a virgin birth.
Krishna was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva, born on July 19th 3228 BC
Dionysus' mother was a mortal Semele and his father was the god Zeus. Zeus had intercourse with his mother - so sorry, not a virgin.
Mithra was born from a rock... I guess that's a virgin...? Kind of a stretch there, ya think?
In fact, most 'virgin births' in mythology were things like "coming from the semen of poseidon and the sea" or "coming from Zeus' head" or a rock, like Mithra!
It should be noted that the Romans invented Crucifixion, it did not exist prior the later half of the first millennium BC
Historically speaking, Mithraism was actually influenced by Christianity - though it can be traced to 2000 years before Christ, we do not start seeing parallels to Christianity until the second century AD, 200 years after the birth of Christianity, and 120 years after the last New Testament document was written.
Though traditionally Jesus is said to have been born on Dec. 25th, it is actually believed he was born in August. It is well known facts that Christians celebrated His birth on Dec. 25th to purposely compete with the Pagan faiths.
As for them all being dead for 3 days and resurrecting - I've found no evidence of this from a reliable source.
The "Three Kings" in Orion’s Belt did not appear until the Middle Ages, long after the appearance of Christianity - Scientists have yet to confirm what the Magi saw that brought them to Bethlehem, all we know is that there was Zoroastrian prophecy saying that a 'star' would appear in the 'West' and lead them to the King of Israel, and savior of mankind.
Notice, the documentary claims that a star in the 'East' - Sirius - aligns with Orion’s belt and becomes brighter...
The Three Wise Men or Kings specifically came from the East, traveling WEST to Bethlehem. Why would they follow an eastern star to go west if they're coming from the East? Furthermore, Jesus was born in the West of the three kings and not the East.
The "M" argument is just plain stupid! What are the Greeks and Chinese/Indians doing using Latin glyphs and Roman mythology and astrology? (many Greek myths were modified by the Romans)
The solstice bit shows a misunderstanding of the sun's movement. The Solstice does not always occur on the 21st, it can occur between the 21st and 23rd. The sun does not just sit idly by for 3 days, waiting for us to make legends about it. It will appear to rise the following day.
The astrology account is not very reliable. According to most astrologists, the age of Pisces began 200 years before Christ, and ended in the year 2000. It’s still rather confusing, and I don’t think they know what age we’re in now, but most sources agree that Pisces started hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. So sorry, close but no cigar.
It should also be noted that Hebrew culture did not embrace the Zodiac, and that Moses never used a ram’s horn – that was mentioned once in the Old testament to signify the coming of the Egyptians. It should be noted that the Gregorian calendar (which our modern day one is largely based on) and Jewish calendar do not follow the Zodiac in anyway shape and or form, and that the Zodiac is not a Jewish symbol, and to Christians, has always been regarded as pagan.
The Symbols of Jesus coming from the Zodiac, while an impressive find, are not really based off the Zodiac. He uses one Zodiac illustration throughout the documentary; it should be noted that not all, in fact, most did not have the axis. The circular symbol around the center of the cross is a simplification of statues which show a halo/crown of thorns around Christ:
I’ve tried looking up this “Nemo” from Babylon – I’ve found no mention outside of a very bias archaeological report (by Murdock). In fact, Manou is the only one I’ve found, and he was an Indian law god around 1000 BC, 1000 years after Moses. Minos was king of Crete, who supposedly got laws from Zeus to impose on his subjects every 9 years. As for Mises… once again, nothing.
In fact, the only mention of ‘nemo’ in a lawgiver sense outside of sources based off of this documentary is in the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Book of John, chapter 7, verse 19:
“Nonne Moses dedit vobis legem et nemo ex vobis facit legem”
Translates:
Did not Moses give you the Law, and [yet] none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?
“Nemo” translates to “none”. This is the only mention of Nemo coming close to a lawgiver outside of the research in Zeitgeist.
In Zeitgeist, the narrator claims that there is no historical proof for Christ, and gives 40 historians who he says do not mention Christ.
Josephus does mention Jesus Christ.
So does Pliny the Younger and
Tacitus, and I think
Tiberius does too.
His claim of Christ being the sun god of Gnostics is rather an idiotic claim
The Gnostics believed Christ similarly to the same way Christians do now – except they believe he was a man, had babies, etc, and came after the first book of the New Testament was believed to have been written.
Not only that, but he claims that the Romans used Christianity for control – this is not so, they had been persecuting Christians for 300 years.
In fact, Constantine used the Edict of Milan as a method of control – not Christianity.
He was not interested in uniting the Empire under one faith, but ending the blood shed – which he did by legalizing ALL religions, not just Christianity.
And the narrator also forgets that the Vatican contributed vastly to the Renascence, perhaps more so than they did the Dark Ages,
and that the Christian Greeks of the Byzantine Empire were the most technologically advanced people of all time until the 1700’s.
He points out the similarities of Jesus and Joseph, and yet, fails to realize that everything recorded in the New Testament is recorded to show Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
He also does not name the differences between Jesus and Joseph – Joseph was not born of a virgin birth, but of a mother in old age - is one example.
Over all the documentary is dangerous and presents exagerated truths and made up theories as facts, and makes connections between them. To anyone who is not well educated in the field of history, this movie will curve them into believing something that is not true. Something that Atheists accuse us Christians of doing.

[blackcat]

[Stuart]

[In Zeitgeist, the narrator claims that there is no historical proof for Christ, and gives 40 historians who he says do not mention Christ.
Josephus does mention Jesus Christ.
So does Pliny the Younger and
Tacitus, and I think
Tiberius does too.
]


You obviously have a broad understanding of the subject and i respect that and i am certainly not advocating that every part of the film is bang on correct, as there is always abit debate over who is right and what happened with something so historical as religion.

One thing i would point about what you said, is that from my limited readings, regarding Josephus, is that Jospehus (Arius Piso under a pseudonym) and Pliny the Younger are laregly responsible for having actually produced the Gospel writings personally and set about creating a new faith and to cut along story short, the Roman Empire later adopted this around 320AD under Constantine who saw politcal advantage in doing so.

It would also appear that Pliny the Younger was married to Jospehus Grand daughter and Jospehus Grandson Antonius was to become a Roman Emperor, therefore positioned to role out the ideas of a prison religion. My reading also suggest that Jesus was an amalgamation of different characters based on pagan gods, old testament characters and Joseph. Interestingly the name Piso is supposed to translate in Hebrew into the spelling of Jospeh in Hebrew. My readings also state that Jospehus/Piso and Pliny's official writings did not infact mention Jesus until the were later doctered at the time everyone would have known it was a fraud as not enough time had elapsed since the supposed time of christ and the writings. You won't be suprised to know that Josephus/Piso and Constantine are supposed to be of the same bloodline again according to my readings.

Just to be fair to you so that you can know my source it is from a David Icke book so it's unlikely that you will agree with it but his is largely referenced against Abelard Reuchlin (The True Authorship of the New Testament 1979). Icke's books do go pretty far out as i am sure most are aware but i can sympathise with alot of things he says and i do see him as someone who come across as likeable and with good intentions. His books are also a very good read.

Personally i don't know what to believe, it seems that people generally write things to suit there beliefs and i have a good friend who is VERY christian who ridicules my beliefs and will not listen to the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy. Funnilly enough though they believe that anti-christ is pursuing an agenda for a cashless society and a microchip in every person or the mark of the best and so the end result is pretty much the same anyway. Then apparently we are all to be judged.

I don't know about you but when you hear religious people spouting the same stuff as so called conspiracy theorists you tend to ask well whose version makes more sense - for me religion ignores everything it doesn't like. Those of us here can see the people and the tools that are used to perpetrate these things ie war, religion, politics and of course the media and when most religious people i know cannot see this and don't want to see this, the idea of a prison religion becomes more believable.

My religious friend even claimed that the biable has a section on some guy who go nuts cos he asking to many questions and looking at conspiracies and eventually he becomes ridiculed and ostracised. I don't know if you can corroborate this.



[/quote]

[ian neal]

[Disco_Destroyer]

[Light Infantree]

[Light Infantree]

[Cruise4]

Hi Guys... I must make it clear these are not my words. I found them on another site and in the interests of fairness and debate posted them here. I think Zeitgeist is a great little film, but everything should be scrutinised from all angles or we open ourselves up to the possibility of falling into the same old trap of mis-information.

The amount of information we are having to process is frankly overwhelming. To me its like finding out almost everything you thought you knew is a lie and history has to be gone through again with a fine tooth comb. Even though there may be minor discrepencies along the way the overall picture is, I believe, becoming clearer and the situation we face today as regards the New World Order Agenda is certain.

Whilst Religion may be a false construct, some good people are nevertheless full on believers and I do not wish to go out of my way to alienate likely allies. On the other hand nor do I wish to encourage them to blindly believe everything they have been told.

[Stuart]

Thats a worthy comment and i would have to agree with you and also agree that the volume of information is overwhelming. You can't know everything about everything and when have a conversation with someone who is not versed or is very shocked by what your saying, they cannot understand this.

[kbo234]

[Cruise4]

I refuse to be drawn in

[ian neal]

Very wise.

Live and let live.

[kbo234]

[alwun]

There were three parts to this presentation.
Parts two and three were well presented and of course also open to be corroborated or criticised from an informed point of view.
I can say that part two - the 911 atrocity 'myth' - an excellent portrayal, seemed to follow on rather well from part one, and that part three was for me, extremely informative.
I very much enjoyed the story of the unfortunate(as it turned out) pagans' myths and observations being usurped by a bunch of chancers with diabolical intent.
And here's the rub. There can by definition be actually no corroboration and henceforth, as we say, no informed point of view on such matters as 'eternal life' or even perhaps 'the raising of the dead' or a 'virgin birth'. As far as I know none of that happened much round where I grew up.
Never mind - the more miracles, the merrier, I say. At least no-one gets crucified in the pagan one.

And so, in spite of the 'virgin birth' and other howlers, I'm with the pagans.

cheers Al..

[truthseeker john]

[petros]

Zeitgeist movie first section about Christianity is a filled with distortions.


Link



Link

[TonyGosling]

Yup - it's an anti-God movie - nothing new there then. There is always dosh for this pied piper style material which has loads of truth and pretends to be objective.

My thesis is that the ultimate goal of the War on Terror is as a vehicle to blame the monotheistic religions for all the world's ills, AFTER the NWO have occupied them that is!

[truthseeker john]